Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of New MexicoUNM Digital Repository
Linguistics ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations
5-1-2016
A Cognitive Grammar Analysis of the Semantics ofthe Russian Verbal Prefix na-Christopher Hart-Moynihan
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted forinclusion in Linguistics ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationHart-Moynihan, Christopher. "A Cognitive Grammar Analysis of the Semantics of the Russian Verbal Prefix na-." (2016).https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/14
i
Christopher Hart-Moynihan Candidate Linguistics Department This thesis is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication: Approved by the Thesis Committee: Melissa Axelrod, Chairperson Tanya Ivanova, Member William Croft, Member
ii
A Cognitive Grammar Analysis
of the Semantics of the Russian Verbal Prefix na-
by
CHRISTOPHER HART-MOYNIHAN
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts Linguistics
The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
May 2016
iii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to two families: Robert, Priscilla, and Luke, and Carla, Joel, and
all the Jacobsens/Beauchamps. Thank you for your support. By hook or by crook!
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like first to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Melissa Axelrod, who has always
provided support and counsel, even during moments of doubt and indecision. I also would like to
thank the other members of my committee, Dr. William Croft and Dr. Tanya Ivanova, whose
commentary was invaluable throughout the continuous process of revision and improvement.
Finally, many thanks are due to all of the friends and colleagues who have walked with me for
all or part of this journey.
v
May 2016
A Cognitive Grammar Analysis
of the Semantics of the Russian Verbal Prefix na-
by
Christopher Hart-Moynihan
B.A., Linguistics, College of William & Mary, 2011
M.A., Linguistics, University of New Mexico, 2016
ABSTRACT
The Russian verbal prefix na- is one of a set of aspectual prefixes that exhibit
characteristics of both derivational and inflectional morphemes. In addition to forming aspectual
pairs as a grammatical marker of Perfective aspect, na-, in many cases, also carries lexical
meaning; in these cases, na-prefixation changes the lexical/semantic meaning of the verbal stem,
resulting in a distinct lexical item. I examine a sample of 40 verbs to compare the frequencies of
na- as a lexicalized prefix and as a grammaticalized prefix. I then propose a radial category
model to account for the polysemous functions of na-, with several metonymically and
metaphorically related functions branching out from a single spatial prototype.
vi
Table of Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..1
2. Theoretical orientation and background……………………………………………………...7
2.1. Cognitive and Construction Grammar……………………………………………...7
2.1.1. Notions of construal, frame, base, profile………………………………..8
2.1.2. Construction grammar…………………………………………………..11
2.1.3. Radical construction grammar…………………………………………..11
2.1.4. Application to Russian na-.......................................................................15
2.2. Cognitive Semantics……………………………………………………………….17
2.2.1. Frame Semantics……………………………………………………….. 17
2.2.2. Polysemy………………………………………………………………...18
2.2.3. Metaphor and metonymy………………………………………………..19
2.2.4. Prototype categories and radial categories……………………………...19
2.2.5. Application to Russian na-……………………………………………...21
2.3. Cognitive approaches to aspect………………………………………………..21
2.3.1. Complex events…………………………………………………………23
2.3.2. Croft’s Verbs……………………………………………………………23
2.3.2.1. Situation types – Vendler…………………………………….23
2.3.2.2. Croft’s revision of Vendler’s categories……………………..24
2.3.3. Application to Russian na-……………………………………………..25
2.4. Cognitive and functional approaches to language change…………………….27
2.4.1. Grammaticalization……………………………………………………..28
2.4.2. Lexicalization…………………………………………………………...28
2.4.3. Unidirectionality………………………………………………………..29
2.4.4. Application to Russian na-……………………………………………..30
3. Previous research on verbal aspect in Russian……………………………………………...33
3.1. Formal approaches: Svenonius, Filip, Polinsky…………………………………..33
vii
3.2. Cognitive approaches: Janda, Croft, Baydimirova, Endresen et al……………….36
3.3. Constructional/Diachronic approaches: Peskova…………………………………43
4. The case of na-………………………………………………………………………………..47
4.1. na- as an independent preposition in Russian…………………………………....47
4.2. na- as a verbal aspectual prefix in Russian………………………………………49
4.2.1.Analysis of the Synchronic Lexicalization and Grammaticalization of na-50
4.2.1.1. Typology of Complex and Simplex Predicate Types……………….50
4.2.1.1.1. Complex Predicate Types………………………………...50
4.2.1.1.2. Simplex Predicate Types……………………………...….52
4.2.1.2. Data Selection and Methodology…………………………………...54
4.2.1.3. Classification of Predicates into Types……………………………..56
4.2.1.3.1. Participant Role Assignment……………………………..57
4.2.1.3.2. Derivation of Imperfectives…………………………...…59
4.2.1.4. Distribution of Type Frequencies with na-………………………....59
4.2.1.5. Position of Predicate Types along Grammaticalization and Lexicalization Continua……………………………………………………61
4.2.1.5.1. The Grammaticalization Continuum in Complex Predicates..61
4.2.1.5.2. The Lexicalization Continuum in Complex and Simplex..62 Predicates
4.2.1.6. Path of Development of Aspectual Prefixes………………………..63
4.2.1.7. Mapping na- onto the Path of Development……………………….63
5. A radial category analysis of na-…………………………………………………………...65
5.1. na- used in complex motion events……………………………………………..73
! Subcat. 1 - Move over an object or surface…………………………………73
! Subcat. 2 - Move against/make contact with an object or surface………….76
! Subcat. 3 - Cause to make contact with an object or surface……………….81
5.2. na- used in non-spatial complex events………………………………………...83
! Subcat. 4 - Metaphorical move over an object or surface………………….85
viii
! Subcat. 5 - Metaphorical move against/make contact with a surface (interfere/infringe)………………………………………………………….88
! Subcat. 6 - Do something until reaching change of state (Resultative)…..98
! Subcat. 7 - Do something a lot; to exhaustion (Completive) (Perfective)..99
! Subcat. 8 – Metaphorical cause to make contact with an object or surface (Causative)………………………………………………………………..103
6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………....104
1
1. Introduction
Russian, an East Slavic language spoken by over 180 million people in Eastern Europe
and Northern Asia, has a complex system of verbal aspect. Comrie (1976) summarizes the
general view of aspect by way of a distinction between two primary ways of construing the
temporal consistency of an action or state (a ‘situation’): “perfectivity indicates the view of a
situation as a single whole, without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that
situation; while the imperfective pays essential attention to the internal structure of the situation”
(16). Bybee (1985: 142), states, “the function of aspect is to allow the temporal dimensions of a
situation to be described from different points of view depending on how the situation is
intended to fit into the discourse.”
Many studies, including Janda (2007a) and Croft (2012), discuss the difficulty of
categorizing aspect in Slavic languages. Croft (2012), in an analysis of verbal aspect in Russian,
writes, “the morphology [of the Russian verbal-aspectual system] does not neatly divide itself
into distinct inflectional categories” (110). Broadly, aspectual distinctions of Russian verbs are
manifested morphologically both through imperfective infixation (or simply the absence of
prefixation in unmarked forms) and perfective prefixation. Of these two morphological
processes, imperfective infixation is generally considered a process restricted to the creation of
imperfective aspectual partners from perfective verbs:
1. a. dat’ ‘give(Pf.)’ davat’ ‘give(Imp.)’
b. pokazat’ ‘show(Pf.)’ pokazyvat’ ‘show(Imp.)’
c. razgovorit’ ‘discuss(Pf.)’ razgovarivat’ ‘discuss(Imp.)’
Perfective prefixation, on the other hand, is generally believed to be actually two distinct
semantic processes. In the first of these, a perfective partner is created from an imperfective verb
2
through prefixation: pisat’-napisat’ ‘write’, videt’-uvidet’ ‘see’, smotret’-posmotret’ ‘look at’. In
the second, more specific aspectual or lexical information--information “above and beyond”
mere perfectivity as Comrie (1976) defines it above--is added to the verbal root through
prefixation, resulting in a new lexical iterm: govorit’-ugovorit’ ‘speak-convince’, est’-doest’
‘eat-finish eating’, dumat’-razdumat’ ‘think-change one’s mind’. In the latter process, a verbal
prefix adds a lexical or aspectual semantic component in addition to perfectivity, such as
completion or orientation toward a goal, as can be seen in the examples above.
Croft (2012) mentions two types of aspectual distinctions coded by Russian verbal-
aspectual morphology: in addition to the broad Perfective/Imperfective distinction, which is
found in almost all verbs, he describes a Determinate/Indeterminate distinction for verbs of
motion. Croft (2012) states that the Determinate/Indeterminate distinction is for expressing
directed vs. undirected activity, while the Perfective/Imperfective distinction is for differentiation
between temporally bounded and temporally unbounded predicates. Many others, including
Dickey (2000) and (2005), and Janda (1986) and (2007), propose additional semantic shifts
encoded by Russian verbal aspectual prefixes, including, among others, Delimitative, Iterative,
and Resultative/Causative.
This study will primarily address perfective prefixation that adds meaning beyond that of
perfective temporal boundedness. I focus on the process of metaphorical semantic extension of
aspectual prefixes, with specific reference to the aspectual prefix na-. In this study, I will show
that na-, when used as a verbal prefix, has undergone semantic broadening in several directions
from an original spatial meaning of physical location or movement on or above a surface. I will
argue that this meaning of physical movement (or location) has been figuratively/metaphorically
reinterpreted by speakers and given additional dimensions both lexically and grammatically. This
3
has resulted in a polysemous prefix that in many cases contributes semantically opaque lexical
information to a verbal root (i.e., lexical information that is not transparently derivable from the
original spatial/aspectual meaning of the prefix), creating a new lexeme, and in other cases
carries a range of more transparent aspectual meanings including, under various circumstances,
completion of an action (Perfective), exhaustion of an action, and undertaking of an action until
reaching a change of state (Resultative), among several others.
2. a. Lexical: stroit’ ‘build’ nastroit’ ‘adjust, tune’
b. Perfective: pisat’ ‘write(Imp.)’ napisat’ ‘write(Pf.)’
b. Exhaustive: govorit’ ‘say, speak’ nagovorit’sya ‘say, speak enough, finish speaking’
c. Resultative: maslit’ ‘butter(v.)’ namaslit’ ‘cover with butter’
The polysemy and semantic broadening of na- offers a case study of both lexicalization
and grammaticalization in progress. As will be shown, there are many na-prefixed predicates
where na-’s contribution is neither lexically transparent (as a spatial prefix) nor grammatically
transparent (as a marker of a grammatical/aspectual category, such as Perfective). For many of
these na-predicates outside of the spatial/motion domain, the lexical (spatial) meaning that na-
possesses as a preposition and transparently contributes to predicates in the spatial domain is
applied metaphorically to the predicate, resulting in a contribution of na- that is semantically
opaque to varying degrees.
Many of these predicates in which the semantic contribution of na- is opaque, especially
the ones with the highest token frequencies, undergo lexicalization1, meaning that they are
increasingly reanalyzed as non-compositional lexical roots in their own right by speakers. At the
1 Lexicalization is defined by Brinton and Traugott (2005) as “the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use a syntactic construction or word formation as a new contentful form with formal AND semantic properties that are not completely derivable or predictable from the constituents of the construction or the word formation pattern” (96).
4
extreme end of this lexicalization process are simplex na- prefixed predicates where the semantic
contribution of na- is fully opaque; Section 4 provides a detailed discussion of this process.
In addition to undergoing full or partial lexicalization with a range of predicates, na- has
also undergone grammaticalization diachronically.2 As the metaphorical re-interpretation of na-
has allowed it to be used in co-occurrence with a semantically wider range of predicates, the
lexical content that it brings to those predicates has become less evident and in many cases it has
been re-analyzed as a semantically transparent (inflectional) grammatical marker of Perfective
aspect. At the extreme end of the grammaticalization process are predicates where na- seemingly
functions simply as an inflectional morpheme used to create a perfective partner from an
imperfective verb. In these cases, the semantic contribution of na- is not connected to spatial
meaning of any kind. Therefore, it can be prefixed to a much wider range of predicates;
examples of this will also be discussed.
In modern Russian, na-predicates encompass a wide range of domains, from motion, to
cognition, to speech-acts, among others, and also a wide range of default temporal construals.
Predicting or modelling probabilistically the semantic contribution of na- to a given predicate as
a function of the domain or default temporal construal of the verbal root, while possible in
theory, is beyond the scope of this study. One example of the difficulty in this kind of analysis is
illustrated by na-prefixed predicates with the same root but distinct semantics:
3. a. nagovorit’ ‘gossip, say unbelievable things’
b. nagovorit’sya ‘talk/say enough’
In this study, I analyze the frequency of na-’s occurrence in complex and simplex
2 Grammaticalization is defined by Lehmann (1985) as “a process which turns lexemes into grammatical formatives and makes grammatical formatives still more grammatical” (308), and by Bybee (2003) as “the process by which a lexical item or a sequence of items becomes a grammatical morpheme, changing its distribution and function in the process” (146).
5
predicate types in various stages of grammaticalization and lexicalization using data from the
Russian National Corpus. I map the current (synchronic) position of na- and na-prefixed
predicates along the lexicalization and grammaticalization axes. This suggests the extent to
which na- has undergone the diachronic processes of lexicalization and grammaticalization from
a quantitative standpoint, as well as providing a visual representation of these processes in na-
and na-prefixed predicates.
In Section 5, I propose a radial category model of the semantics of na- as a prefix,
following Lakoff (1987), in order to outline and classify the ways in which na- contributes
semantically to na-predicates. It will be shown that na-prefixed predicates employ the image
schema for complex motion events outlined in Talmy (1988a) and Croft et al. (2010), both
literally in the physical domain and metaphorically in other domains. na- encodes the ‘framing
component’ of this image schema. Generally, the ‘framing component’ encodes specific
information about the (physical or metaphorical) Path component, such as the manner and
directionality of the movement. na-’s function as a framing component is to profile the contact
between two objects. It will be shown that na- has a range of meanings that are related either by
metonymy or metaphorical extension to the prototypical meaning of na-, which indicates
movement ‘on’ or ‘over’ an object or surface in the (prototypical) core image schema. The
proposal of the radial category model for na- will include a discussion of the image schemas for
the metonymically related uses of na-, as well as the specific construals involved in the
metaphorical application of these image schemas. A brief description of each specific use of na-
will be given with examples from the Russian National Corpus.
I argue that na- is stored as a radial category with multiple members. Each member is
related to the prototype via metonymical or metaphorical extensions of the core (physical) image
6
schema (a complex motion event profiling the contact of a trajectory with a landmark). This
manifests itself as polysemy of na- synchronically, with na- being more or less grammaticalized
in different contexts (i.e., predicates) and na- predicates being more or less lexicalized.
Construction Grammar approaches suggest that na-predicates comprise a family of
constructions, which can be represented as na+VROOT (more schematic) and naVROOT (less
schematic). There are also cases of full semantic fusion where the semantic contribution of na- to
the predicate has become completely opaque; in other words, it no longer adds any obvious
lexical or grammatical meaning (VROOT). The meaning of na- results from the constructions of
which it forms a part; it is a Gestalt. Diachronically, the extension of na- to a wider range of
constructions (i.e., predicates) can be explained in terms of the ‘novel reconstrual’ of predicates
mentioned in Croft (2001:129): a novel syntactic structure (adding na- to a predicate) expresses a
novel reconstrual of the event expressed by the predicate (as a complex motion event utilizing
the core image schema described above). This new construal is then conventionalized over time:
na+VROOT → naVROOT → VROOT.
In Section 6, I discuss the implications of the semantic development and profile of na- for
the study of verbal aspect as a whole. In the case of na-, diachronic patterns of use have resulted
in a synchronic polysemy for the morpheme, resulting in a diverse array of functions for the
morpheme that are tangentially related to its original, spatial connotation.
7
2. Theoretical orientation and background
In this section, I provide an overview of the principles of cognitive linguistics that form
the foundation for the analysis that follows. I begin, in Section 2.1, with a summary of the
notions of construal, frame, base, and profile that are drawn from the definitions found in
cognitive grammar and then outline the principles of construction grammar and radical
construction grammar, with a look at how these ideas apply to my analysis of Russian na-. I then
move to a discussion of cognitive semantics in Section 2.2, and to a discussion of cognitive
approaches to aspect, more particularly, in Section 2.3. Finally, I provide background cognitive
theoretical approaches to language change, and specifically to the research on lexicalization and
grammaticalization in Section 2.4.
2.1. Cognitive and Construction Grammar
The research on Russian na- predicates presented here is grounded in the tradition of
Construction Grammar approaches to language, including Croft’s Radical Construction
Grammar and Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar. Broadly, these cognitive-functionalist
theoretical models seek to model the emergence of syntactic structures from semantic construals-
-the outgrowth of form from meaning--as well as to find commonalities with broader cognitive
processes such as categorization and analogy.
Langacker (1987) proposes a cognitive semantic model of language that draws on our
understanding of more generalized cognitive processes and that is based in meaning. He writes,
“Central concepts of cognitive grammar suggest an alternative [to traditional grammar], where
linguistic theory consists in the substantive characterization of prototypical structures, graded
with respect to their degree of prototypicality and cognitive entrenchment; higher degrees of
prototypicality and entrenchment translate into greater likelihood that a structure will be
8
implemented among the conventions defining a given language” (52). Thus, Langacker’s model
is in line both with research in cognitive psychology on prototype effects (e.g., Rosch 1978) and
with functionalist work on the emergence of grammar from patterns of usage (e.g., Hopper
1987).
2.1.1. Notions of construal, frame, base, profile
Before discussing the specific details of the polysemy analysis of na- that this study will
undertake, it is important to explain several more essential concepts found in Cognitive and
Construction Grammar that are fundamental to the present study. Here I will discuss some key
terms found in these models, including ‘construal’, ‘frame’, ‘base’, and ‘profile’.
In Cognitive Grammar, construal refers to the the way that the ‘conceptual structure’ of
an event is represented semantically in language. Langacker (1972) and (1987/1988) argues that
‘semantic structure’ and ‘conceptual structure’ represent two layers of meaning, with ‘conceptual
structure’ referring to the way in which events are structured in reality3, independently of
language, while ‘semantic structure’ refers to the way that specific languages encode this
structure. Langacker writes:
If one language says I am cold, a second I have cold, and a third It is cold to me, these
expressions differ semantically even though they refer to the same experience, for they employ
different images to structure the same basic conceptual content (Langacker 1987:47).
Semantic structures incorporate conventional “imagery”, i.e. they construe a situation in a
particular fashion...The lexical and grammatical resources of a language are therefore not
semantically neutral--inherent to their nature is the structuring of conceptual content for symbolic
purposes (Langacker 1988:49).
The example cited by Langacker above, in which languages semantically code the same event
3 Or, if one wishes to draw the distinction, the way in which the human mind apprehends and structures real events “independently of” or “prior to” language. For the purposes of this study, the structure of events “as the mind perceives” them and “as they truly are” is considered to be the same.
9
differently, is an example of differing construals. I am cold construes cold as a property of the
subject I, similar to other properties (fat, tired, American), whereas I have cold construes cold as
a mass noun possessed by the subject I (similar to tea, hair, tenure), and It is cold to me
construes cold, rather than I, as the central participant in the event (see Croft (2001:111-126) for
a more detailed discussion). The use of differing semantic or symbolic construals for the same
event in different languages is taken by Langacker as evidence that languages are not
‘semantically neutral’, although the possibility is left open that certain semantic structures may
be more or less neutral with respect to the (language-independent) conceptual structure of the
event. Croft (2012) states, “The most salient characteristic of construal is that the same
experience may be construed in alternative ways” (13).
Cognitive and Construction Grammar argue that the cognitive processes by which
construals are created are the same as those utilized in other (non-linguistic) cognitive tasks. The
process of ‘Judgement/Comparison’ is one of four (equally important) broad cognitive abilities
that, according to Croft and Cruse (2004), play an active part in the construction of construals--
the others being Attention/Salience, Situatedness, and Constitution/Gestalt.
For the concept of ‘frame’, this study uses the definition given in Fillmore (1982), who
states, “By the term ‘frame’ I have in mind any system of concepts related in such a way that to
understand anyone of them you have to understand the whole structure in which it fits; when one
of the things in such a structure is introduced into a text, or into a conversation, all of the others
are automatically made available. I intend the word ‘frame’ as used here to be a general cover
term for the set of concepts variously known, in the literature on natural language understanding,
as ‘schema’, ‘script’, ‘scenario’, ‘ideational scaffolding’, ‘cognitive model’, or ‘folk theory’.”
Croft and Cruse (2004) define a frame as a “coherent region of conceptual space” (14). In other
10
words, a ‘frame’ is a type of encyclopedic cognitive category instantiated by a linguistic form,
such as a word or construction.
The concept of ‘base’ in Cognitive Grammar is similar the idea of ‘frame’. In Cognitive
Grammar, ‘bases’ are central concepts, or elements of conceptual structure, which are
fundamental to understanding the use of more specific concepts. Langacker gives the example of
a WHEEL: for an understanding of concepts such as SPOKE, HUB and RIM, a knowledge of the
concept of WHEEL is fundamental. In Cognitive Grammar terms, WHEEL is a base and
SPOKE, HUB, and RIM are profiles.
Predications have bases as well, which can be more complex than the bases of reference
constructions such as ‘wheel’, given that predications often encode dynamic events with multiple
participants. Langacker (1987) states, “The base of a predication is simply its domain (or each
domain in a complex matrix)” (6), with domain defined as “any sort of conceptualization: a
perceptual experience, a concept, a conceptual complex, an elaborate knowledge system, and so
forth” (4). Domains include both “‘basic domains’, that is, cognitively irreducible
representational spaces or fields of conceptual potential,” such as, for example, certain physical
domains, and ‘non-basic domains’ (5). Common domains that serve as bases for predications
include physical, cognitive, and perceptual domains, among others. In other words, the ‘base’ of
a predication is the domain or domains in which the event described by the predication takes
place.
Croft and Cruse (2004) define a base as “that knowledge or conceptual structure that is
presupposed by the profiled concept” (15); a profile “refers to the concept symbolized by the
word in question” (15) (for example, radius is a concept that can only be understood against a
background understanding of circle; radius is the profile and circle is the base). Additionally, the
11
meaning of a linguistic unit must specify both the profile and the base, and a domain is “a
semantic structure that functions as the base for at least one concept profile” (15).
2.1.2. Construction grammar
Construction Grammar can be broadly understood as an approach to the study of
language that seeks to ascertain the relationship of form and meaning. The key idea of
Construction Grammar is that, in addition to words, constructions themselves have independent
meaning. The earliest studies in Construction Grammar, such as Fillmore et al (1988), focus on
idiomatic constructions whose meaning is not reducible to their component parts, such as English
let alone. Later iterations of Construction Grammar, including Boas and Sag (2012) and
Goldberg (1995), among others, seek to outline a taxonomy of constructions in language and
model their relationships with one another. As Goldberg (1995) describes construction grammar,
“Basic sentences of English are instances of constructions -- form-meaning correspondences that
exist independently of particular verbs...constructions themselves carry meaning independently
of the words in the sentence” (1). Constructions, she says, are form-meaning correspondences
which constitute the basic units of grammar. The lexicon is “not neatly differentiated from the
rest of grammar” (4).
2.1.3. Radical Construction Grammar
Radical Construction Grammar is unique among approaches to Construction Grammar in
its proposal of a non-hierarchical relationship between constructions. In Radical Construction
Grammar, small, concrete units of language such as words and morphemes are considered
constructions on the same level as highly schematic, multivalent constructions such as, for
example, ditransitive and argument structure constructions.4 All constructions have meaning that
emerges through their co-occurrence with and distribution within other constructions, similar to a 4 This study uses the terms ‘construction’ as it is used in Fillmore et al (1988).
12
Gestalt. For example, parts of speech, rather than being taken as lower-level building blocks with
intrinsic or primitive semantic meaning, instead are understood to have a meaning that is a
function of the position they occupy in all of the more schematic constructions in which they
occur. Croft (1999), discussing the issue with the former approach, states,
“Constructions are used to define categories [such as parts of speech]--this is the distributional
method. But then categories are taken as primitives that define constructions--this is the standard
syntactic model of representation...The distributional method is perfectly valid: it accurately and
completely describes the grammatical patterns of language. There is no proper alternative to
distributional analysis. Instead, we should abandon the assumption that syntactic structures are made
up of primitive categories and relations” (73-74).
Croft (2001) argues that grammar is fundamentally grounded in and derived from the
semantic construals of objects, properties and actions that arise through cognitive and
interactional linguistic processes. The result of those processes on grammar can be investigated
cross-linguistically, leading to the identification of typological universals of linguistic structure
and possibly allowing for language change to be modeled probabilistically. The current research
is an example of such an investigation; it seeks to explain a component of grammar--the
morpheme na-’s function as a prefix in Russian--through an explanation of the diachronic
cognitive and interactional processes that have led to the current usage.
According to Croft (2001), semantic structure and semantic change in language arises
from a universal, though multifaceted, conceptual structure:
“There exists a conceptual structure that represents universal aspects of human experience, even
if that conceptual structure is multifaceted. Hence we may posit a multidimensional conceptual
space that is largely the same for human beings. The conceptual space must allow for alternative
conceptualization of experience, as manifested by the extension of constructions to describe
situations that they were not used to describe in earlier stages of the language. This is captured by
the structure of the conceptual space. Extension of constructions to new uses is a change in the
distribution of that construction, and such changes are theorized to follow connected paths in
conceptual space. For example, the predication of bodily states would be situated between the
13
predication of inherent properties and the predication of possession, thereby representing its
conceptually intermediate--and conceptually ambivalent--status. The structure of conceptual
space should capture the similarities and differences of neighboring points in the space, which
invite alternative conceptualizations.” (130)
Conceptual space can therefore be thought of as a type of exoskeleton containing
conceptual structure in language; the shape of conceptual space puts certain constraints on
conceptual structure, but within those constraints, conceptual structure (and the resultant
semantic structure) can and does vary greatly, both within and across languages.
Another feature of Radical Construction Grammar that follows from this hypothesized
conceptual space is the rejection of the assumption that certain constructions are semantically
equivalent across all languages. Instead, Radical Construction Grammar merely posits the
existence of constructions within languages that may have commonalities with other
constructions in other languages. This leaves open the possibility that analogous constructions in
different languages might occupy different points in conceptual space as they undergo processes
of diachronic change.
Through the idea of a multidimensional conceptual space on which specific linguistic
constructions are located and connected to one another, Radical Construction Grammar reaches a
conclusion somewhere in between the extreme semantic universalist position and what Croft
calls the ‘semantic relativity hypothesis’. The extreme universalist position, in essence, seeks to
reduce semantics to a basic set of atomic ‘universal primitive categories’, which are the
hypothetical building blocks of the conceptual structure, common to all speakers, that underlies
the semantic structure of all languages. The strong version of the semantic relativity hypothesis
draws the opposite conclusion: differences of semantic construal across languages are indicative
of significant differences in the cognitive conceptual structure of the speakers of those languages,
and therefore finding any kind of semantic universals across languages is not possible.
14
Radical Construction Grammar posits the existence of a common conceptual structure
and conceptual space that is “roughly the same” for all speakers (128). However, rather than a
static structure composed of atomic primitives, conceptual structure is “an experience in which
alternative, conflicting conceptualizations are simultaneously immanent” (128).
The alternative conceptualizations are rendered available by the different grammatical elements,
from lexical items to grammatical constructions, that make up a speaker’s utterance in context. The
multidimensional character of experience can allow for a novel construal of the semantic structure
for a conceptual experience. The novel reconstrual of semantic structure is expressed by the use of a
nonconventional syntactic structure for that experience (such as the earliest uses of avoir ‘have’ for
bodily states), which encodes the reconstrual in the process that I have described in this
section...Once the new syntactic structure has become conventionalized, however, other, universal,
properties of the experience reassert themselves.
(129)
The ‘novel reconstrual’ of an experience described by Croft (2001) is the catalyst for diachronic
language variation and change; it is also, as the present study argues, the cognitive basis for the
wide range of functions of the aspectual prefix na-. The present study argues that the use of na-
in a wide range of predications can be explained as the result of novel reconstruals of various
experiences using a nonconventional morphosyntactic structure containing the (originally
spatial) prefix na- -- similarly to the example of avoir mentioned by Langacker and Croft--which
has in many cases then become fully conventionalized.
The idea of linguistic compositionality, its role in Radical Construction Grammar, and its
relevance to this study, will now be briefly discussed. The principle of compositionality, also
known in the philosophy of language as ‘Frege’s Principle’, is commonly stated as, “The
meaning of a compound expression is a function of the meaning of its parts and of the syntactic
rule by which they are combined” (Partee, ter Meulen, and Wall, 1990:318). Croft (2001)
modifies this principle, stating, “More precisely, the semantics of the whole construction follows
the general rules of semantic composition of expressions in the language...In a construction
15
grammar model, the general rules of semantic composition correspond to the symbolic relations
linking form and meaning in the most schematic or general constructions in the language” (180).
From a Radical Construction Grammar perspective, less schematic or more concrete
constructions (words and morphemes) and more schematic constructions (clauses, argument
structure constructions) both influence one another’s semantics. Over time, the semantics of less
schematic constructions such as the prefix na-, can be pulled in different directions by the
semantics of the various, more schematic constructions of which they form a part. As a result,
the connection of the meanings of the less schematic constructions with their ‘original’ meanings
becomes less evident in some cases as many of the more schematic constructions become
conventionalized and themselves less compositionally or schematically analyzable (one example
of this process taken to completion is the continued use of idioms whose individual components
are no longer used independently in a language, such as English kith and kin).
2.1.4. Application to Russian na-
From the perspective of Cognitive Grammar, the polysemy of na- is due partly to its use
with predicates in various domains, and partly to the different ‘profiles’ of predicates within the
physical domain that take na-.5
In the case of na-, the primary ‘base’ that the use of na- in predication constructions
instantiates6 is a complex motion event, within the physical domain, with all of the components--
including a conventional understanding of spatial and force-dynamic relations between objects--
necessary for a cognitive representation of the event. The ‘profile’ of na- varies with different
predicates that take na-, even for predicates within the physical domain. The variation in profile
means that predicates with na- in the physical domain may ‘elevate’ or ‘foreground’ different 5The first phenomenon is metaphor, and the second is metonymy. Both concepts are discussed in 2.2.3. 6 This can be understood as similar to na-’s frame in Fillmore’s terminology, or its core image schema (discussed in 2.3.1.).
16
nodes of this base: this is how distinct metonymic usages of na- arise, such as movement on or
over a surface, movement against a surface or caused movement against a surface.
Additionally, the application and use of the representational elements of this base within
other non-basic domains leads to metaphorical usages of na-, such as completion of a task,
finding an object or gossiping about someone. When na- is used with predicates in non-basic
(non-physical) domains, some of the concepts that are associated with its use in basic domains
still apply, but to varying extents and in diverse ways, depending on the specific domain.
Langacker would argue that understanding the function of na- is a matter of combining all of
concepts associated with the use of na- with predicates in different domains: “The conventional
meaning of a lexical item must be equated with the entire network, not with any single node” (4).
As a result, the conceptual structures of an extremely wide range of events and event
participants are represented semantically by Russian na-predicates and their arguments, as this
study will show. From the perspective of Radical Construction Grammar, in the case of na-, the
predicate created by adding the prefix na- to a verbal root (represented in RCG notation as
na+VROOT) can be seen as a ‘more schematic construction’ (i.e., a construction whose meaning
can be derived from the meaning of its parts). As with other cases of aspectual prefixation in
Russian, the semantic composition of this construction is often simply a result of combining the
independent uses of the two components (the meaning of the prefix when used as an independent
preposition + the meaning of the verb when used independently of prefixation), which
themselves are ‘less schematic/more concrete constructions’ in RCG.
Often, however, the meaning of the whole construction is less compositional (and,
therefore, predictable), especially when the event described does not involve literal motion or
movement (this can be represented as [na-VROOT], or, in extreme cases when the compound
17
predicate has undergone full re-analysis and na- is no longer recognized as a prefix, simply
VROOT). In other words, the more schematic construction, the predicate, becomes itself less
schematically analyzable. As stated above, this leads to the existence of a range of different
meanings for na- in different constructional/usage contexts (i.e., different predicates).
2.2. Cognitive Semantics
Cognitive semantics is one of three principal approaches to semantics, the other two
being formal semantics and generative semantics. Central to Cognitive Semantics is the notion
that linguistic meaning is a product of cognitive processes that result in linguistic
conceptualization or construal7. Consequently, the semantic meaning of constructions in
language is subject to contextual variation and change and cannot be satisfactorily modeled
truth-conditionally. Several models of cognitive semantics, including Frame Semantics and
prototype theory, propose solutions to this dilemma.
2.2.1. Frame Semantics
Fillmore (1982) proposes a generalized model of cognitive semantics. The concept of
‘frames’, outlined in 2.1.1, is central to Fillmore’s model of Frame Semantics. Petruck (1996)
writes, “In Frame Semantics, a word represents a category of experience; part of the research
endeavor is the uncovering of reasons a speech community has for creating the category
represented by the word and including that reason in the description of the meaning of the word”
(1). In other words, the meaning of words and other linguistic constructions is a product of the
network of concepts (the ‘frame’) that each construction instantiates, a network that is built up
within a language community through shared experience. Frames for a given construction may
include information outside of a truth-conditional model, which allows for a more detailed
7 These terms are used fairly interchangeably in the literature; in this study I have opted to use ‘construal’ (see 2.1.1.) due to its more specialized use within the field of Cognitive Linguistics.
18
description of meaning. Fillmore (1982) gives the example of land and ground; both terms refer
to the same entity in reality, making them semantically equivalent from a truth-conditional
perspective. However, the frame for land includes a default opposition to water, while the frame
for ground includes a default opposition to air.
Goldberg (1995) applies a frame analysis to argument-structure constructions, showing
that not only the meaning of more concrete linguistic items such as words, but also that of highly
schematic linguistic constructions, can be explained in terms of frames. Taking the case of na-,
in Frame Semantics terms, the use of a na-predicate activates a specific frame or schema--that of
a complex motion event--with all of its attendant participants and components, such as Figure,
Ground, Path, and Manner (discussed further in 2.3.1.).
2.2.2. Polysemy
Cognitive semantics explains linguistic polysemy as a result of the cognitive process of
comparison, which leads to categorization and the forming of category structure. Croft (2001)
states, “...monosemy and homonymy are not the only possible analyses of word, morpheme, or
constructional meaning...A polysemy analysis for a word or construction proposes that two uses
of a form are semantically related to each other by a semantic process (such as metaphor)
without those two uses being semantically identical (=having a single overarching
meaning)...Polysemy analyses play a central role in cognitive linguistics; Lakoff (1987) for
example discusses them in detail, calling them radial categories” (115-116). This paper employs
Lakoff’s radial categories model, outlined in 2.2.4, to provide a polysemy analysis for na-. I
show that na-, as a verbal prefix, has multiple, related meanings, making a polysemy analysis
best suited for its description. The ways in which these meanings are related to one another can
be modeled using prototype theory and radial categories, which will be expanded upon in 2.2.4.
19
2.2.3. Metaphor and metonymy
Croft and Cruse (2004) explain that the fundamental cognitive process of comparison
allows for the existence of linguistic categorization as well as metaphor, which is defined here
and elsewhere in the literature as “mapping between a source domain and a target domain” (34).
In other words, the application of a concept from a more concrete domain (i.e., a domain more
connected with the “developmental, physical neural, and interactive body”, to use terms from
Lakoff and Johnson’s (1999) embodied cognition model), such as, for example, directionality, is
used in order to conceptualize and understand a concept from a more abstract domain, such as
quantity; an example of this is the sentence, Prices are rising. This results in the differing
construal and polysemy of the lexical item used to refer to both concepts--in this case, the word
rising.
2.2.4. Prototype categories and radial categories
The concept of cognitive ‘bases’ as prototypical structures in cognitive-semantic space
and ‘profiles’ as substructures instantiated and brought into focus by specific linguistic forms
from Cognitive Grammar has much in common with prototype theory and the radial category
model of semantics proposed by Lakoff. Lakoff (1987) states, “Most of our words and concepts
designate categories... (xiii) We categorize events, actions, emotions, spatial relationships, social
relationships, and abstract entities of an enormous range” (6). In Lakoff’s model, linguistic forms
(morphemes, lexemes, word classes, routinized phrases, etc.) possess a network of related
meanings that all bear relation to a central prototype. In this model, the relations between
members of a radial network, and therefore the cognitive processes of categorization that give
rise to the network, are often unpredictable. Lakoff’s well-known example of a noun class from
Dyirbal containing members the Dyirbal nouns for ‘fire’, ‘women’, ‘water’, ‘violence’ and some
20
animals (cf. Dixon (1968)), serves as an example of how the categorization process for a
linguistic form--in this case, a noun--does not always use similarity of salient features like of size
or shape as a requirement for category membership, but might rather use something completely
different, like similarity of perceived level of dangerousness in this case.
Lakoff (1987) gives the example of the word ‘bachelor’; if the meaning of this linguistic
form is strictly defined (formally or truth-conditionally) as “an unmarried adult male”, then there
are clear examples of individuals that meet these criteria but to whom the word ‘bachelor’ does
not apply as a descriptor, such as Tarzan and the Pope. In other words, although these individuals
meet the truth conditions necessary to be considered bachelors, they are not conventionally
construed as such.
Prototypicality should not be understood as the proposal of an objectively standard
fundamental meaning for a given form. Rosch (1978) writes, “To speak of a prototype at all is
simply a convenient grammatical fiction; what is really referred to are judgements of degree of
prototypicality” (40). In other words, to speak of a particular form-meaning mapping as
prototypical is simply to say that the speech community judges it to be prototypical. A related
idea is that prototypes are not necessarily to be understood as semantic primitives, as Langacker
(1987) clarifies: “No specific claim is made to the effect that the smallest units of linguistic
significance are necessarily primitives...Semantic units are defined relative to knowledge
structures, which can be extremely complicated, even for units that are minimal for most
linguistic purposes” (87).
Prototypes can exist for very broad linguistic categories, such as man or transitive verb,
or for single lexical elements, such as na-, whose meaning may vary in different contexts. For
each category, members vary in their degree of closeness to the prototype. Diachronically,
21
certain uses of a given linguistic form are conventionalized through use, which results in a
gradual shift in the semantic prototype corresponding to that form. In other words, while a form
can be polysemous synchronically, its prototype can also change over time so that the form
becomes polysemous diachronically as well. These two semantic processes are part of broader
processes of language variation and language change.
2.2.5. Application to Russian na-
This study will argue that the function of na- can be depicted by a radial category
analysis. The myriad meanings of na- as a verbal prefix all bear relation to the prototype
meaning of MOVE ON/OVER SOMETHING, whether by using the same conceptual structure/image
schema in the case of predicates within the physical domain, focusing attention on a particular
part of the image schema in the case of some verbs (metonymy), or the application of the
prototypical conceptual structure/image schema to non-physical domains (metaphor).
2.3. Cognitive approaches to aspect
2.3.1. Complex events
A fundamental necessity for an understanding of na-’s wide range of synchronic
functions and its diachronic evolution is a more general understanding of the structure of
complex events and the various ways that these can be encoded in language. Talmy (2003a)
analyzes “the specific way in which language shapes and structures conceptual content, that is,
the specific patterns in which and the processes by which conceptual content is organized by and
in language” (2). Talmy (1985a) claims that language organizes conceptual content for various
event types through recourse to Image Schemas, which allow for the expression of the (often
metaphorical) spatial context within which an event takes place as well as the categorization
through spatial construal of the various event participants. Different event types have different
22
core schemas: the core schema for motion events, for example, consists of Figure, Ground, Path,
and Manner.
Talmy’s later research argues that the schema for motion events is also used more
generally for any change-of-state event with a resultant state. Croft et al. (2010) explain, “This
more generalized concept of a path is called framing in Talmy’s later work: framing includes
concepts such as path, aspect etc. that delimit or otherwise frame the verbal event. The event
frame in Talmy’s sense corresponds to the result in the dichotomy of event types presented by
Levin and Rappaport (2005); the other event component is called manner by Levin and
Rappaport” (3). Given this analysis, it can be stated that na- and other markers of verbal aspect
encode the framing component of an event; when the verb to which na- is prefixed expresses a
motion event, na- encodes information about the Path, and when the verb expresses some other
type of event, such as a cognitive or interactional process, na- may encode other temporal
information, perhaps simply expressing perfective aspect or perhaps giving more detailed
temporal/aspectual information such as a change of state of one of the event participants.
Slobin (2004) and Croft et al. (2010) expand upon the investigation of complex event
coding in language by proposing a cross-linguistic typology of complex event expression. They
divide languages (or, more accurately, constructions within languages) into categories based on
the morphosyntactic manner in which the framing component of a complex event is expressed:
Verb-Framing, Satellite-Framing, Symmetrical-Framing, (Slobin 2004, Croft et al. 2010), to
which Croft (2010) adds Double-Framing. Each element of the core image schema can be
mapped to various morphosyntactic elements; for example, Russian, along with French, is given
as an example of a language that employs double-framing constructions, “in which the path or
framing expression is expressed twice, once as a detached satellite and once as part of the verb”
23
(Croft et al, 2010: 7). The following example is given as evidence of this:
Russian (Talmy 1985:105)
(30) Ja vy- bežal iz doma I out- ran from house:GEN 'I ran out of the house.'
(7) Here, the framing component ‘out of/out from’ is expressed in two ways: as a spatial
aspectual prefix to a motion verb and as an independent spatial preposition. According to
Peskova (2013), double framing of complex motion events allows for the spatial/aspectual prefix
to be analyzed over time as a marker of simple perfective aspect (or for the prefix/predicate
combination to be re-analyzed as a single lexicalized form), which meaning then leads to its
more productive use as a perfective marker on non-motion verbs.
2.3.2. Croft’s Verbs
Croft (2012) investigates the influence of aspectual structure and causal structure of
events on argument structure and event lexicalization. Croft focuses in particular on the
inadequacy of aspectual theory, which classifies predicates according to aspectual type, to
explain argument structure by itself. According to Croft, both aspectual structure and causal
structure affect argument structure, albeit independently. Croft proposes a three-dimensional
model for integrating the representation of causal and aspectual structure for predicates (ch. 5-6).
2.3.2.1. Situation types - Vendler Vendler (1967) provides the first classification of event types expressed in language.
Vendler justifies this classification semantically and logically, as well as through an examination
of the differentiated morphosyntactic coding of different event types in language. According to
Vendler (1967), events can be classified as States, Activities, Achievements, or
Accomplishments. Vendler writes, “the concept of activities calls for periods of time that are not
24
unique or definite. Accomplishments, on the other hand, imply the notion of unique and definite
time periods. In an analogous way, while achievements involve unique and definite time instants,
states involve time instants in an indefinite and nonunique sense” (26).
Vendler’s proposed event types can also be seen as a first attempt to construct a typology
of aspectual predicate types. Vendler uses constructional evidence in some cases to differentiate
among the four types--for example, activity and accomplishment predicates can occur in the
continuous, or progressive, construction, while state and achievement predicates cannot,
accomplishment predicates usually take a nominal complement (e.g., run a mile, paint a picture),
while activity predicates usually do not (run, paint), achievement predicates occur in participial
constructions even to express a present meaning (He has won the race)--but other, more slippery
cases, such as the differentiation between activities and accomplishments and accomplishments
and achievements, are explained through reference to the basic ‘time schemas’ of each event
type:
For activities: A was running at time t means that time instant t is on a time stretch
throughout which A was running.
For accomplishments: A was drawing a circle at t means that t is on the time stretch in
which A drew that circle.
For achievements: A won a race between t1 and t2 means that the time instant at which A won
that race is between t1 and t2.
For states: A loved somebody from t1 to t2 means that at any instant between t1 and t2
A loved that person.
(25-26)
This approach to verbal aspect, therefore, consists of the establishment of event types
largely based on semantic criteria, followed by the investigation of the overlap of
morphosyntactic constructions with these types.
2.3.2.2. Croft’s revision of Vendler’s categories
Croft (2012) proposes a revision of Vendler’s categories. In this revised model, there are:
25
a. Four types of states: inherent (permanent) states, acquired permanent states, transitory
states, and point states; the last could be seen as subtype of transitory states;
b. Two types of activities: directed activities and undirected activities:
c. Two types of achievements: reversible achievements and irreversible achievements:
d. Accomplishments;
e. Cyclic achievements (semelfactives);
f. Runup achievements--not punctual like other achievements, but not incremental like
Vendlerian accomplishments.
This model offers a more detailed classification of the types aspectual meaning that can
be contributed by aspectual prefixes such as na-. Often, the prefixation of a predicate with an
aspectual prefix such as na- involves a change in the construal of the event type of the predicate;
while this possibility is not covered in detail in this study, it is illustrated in the discussion of the
radial category model of na-, particularly in the discussions of na-’s function as a Resultative and
Perfective marker. In these instances, na- seems to be used to give an achievement construal to a
predicate which has a default construal as an activity.
2.3.3. Application to Russian na-
It is argued here, similarly to Peskova (2013), that in Russian, the original use of na- in a
double-framing construction in complex event predicates to encode movement on or above a
surface has been semantically broadened through a conceptual re-mapping of the lexical and
morphosyntactic elements of various complex event constructions to the visual components
found in the core image schema.
Peskova (2013) sees the reanalysis of spatio-temporal prefixes as semantically empty
markers of perfectivity in Czech as an example of pragmatic inferencing leading diachronically
to semantic reanalysis of a morpheme, writing,
26
Semantic components of complex motion events are hypothesized to have belonged to one core
schema that consisted of figure, a path encoding prefix, a manner verb, a path encoding
preposition, and ground. Spatial prefixes thus belonged to one major constructional schema of
path encoding telic motion events. In a constructional network encompassing telic motion event
expressions with path prefixes and prepositions, plausible links between literal contents and
implicatures on the path prefixes may become more relevant than the original symbolic mapping
between a spatial meaning and a prefix...In this view, the prototype of all path telic motion event
expressions allowed for the conception of a plausible link between the literal contents and the
goal oriented nature of the construction. In particular, this thesis argues that goal oriented telic
complex predicates yielded a resultative interpretation of the core schema, creating a likely
inference between prefixes and perfective implicatures. Indeed, spatial prefixes in these
constructions came to be associated with telic predicate expressions and a frequently inferred
result state that accompanied them.
(24)
This analysis states that aspectual prefixes evolved from lexical/derivational morphemes
with definite spatial semantics to grammatical/inflectional morphemes with a more generalized
aspectual meaning, through a cognitive process of broadening of the core schema used for “goal
oriented telic complex predicates” to have simply a resultative meaning--which the prefix was
assumed to encode. Peskova (2013) does not take a position with respect to the question of total
semantic bleaching of verbal aspectual prefixes in Czech, stating simply that a “likely inference”
has been made between verbal prefixes and “perfective implicatures”.8
The current study argues that na-, originally a spatial prefix analyzed by speakers as a
descriptor (framing component) of the Path indicating that the Path’s movement is occurring ‘on’
8 This idea of total semantic bleaching and grammaticalization of prefixes, so that they end up as simple markers of perfective aspect, is an idea that is rejected by the Overlap Hypothesis (Vey 1952; Schooneveld 1958; Janda & Nesset forthcoming). This hypothesis posits that there are no semantically empty aspectual prefixes in Russian; in other words, no prefixes are simply grammatical markers of perfective aspect. Even in the case of Natural Perfectives, the fact that the prefix appears to be adding nothing to a predicate’s meaning apart from perfectivity is an illusion, according to this hypothesis; in such cases, the additional spatio-temporal lexical information conveyed by the prefix is also expressed in the predicate, so the overlapping semantic information is rendered redundant and the predicate is simply perfectivized without any significant lexical semantic change, making the prefix seem semantically “bare” even though this is actually not the case.
A definitive determination of the validity of the hypothesis to the semantics of na- or to Russian verbal aspectual prefixes as a whole is beyond the scope of the present study,
27
or ‘above’ an object or surface, has in many cases had its meaning re-interpreted due to the
metaphorical application of the complex motion event schema to goal-oriented, telic complex
event predicates outside the physical domain. When na- cannot literally refer to ‘movement
on/above an object/surface’, a process of inference occurs in which its function of profiling
additional components (e.g., the position and directionality) of the physical Path is transferred to
a function of profiling additional components of the metaphorical Path, such as, for example, its
orientation toward a Goal. This allows na- to be semantically reanalyzed as resultative or
causative marker--and, in some cases, seemingly a simple inflectional marker of perfective
aspect.
2.4. Cognitive and functional approaches to language change
Language variation and change allow semantic meanings to be mapped to linguistic
forms in an inexhaustible variety of ways. The social/cognitive mechanisms of semantic
diachronic shift and synchronic diversity are complex. A very broad overview of the basic
principles of language change is given in Bybee (2008):
1. mechanisms of change are universal in that they can be found operating in all languages at all times
2. they are relatively few in number 3. they involve neurocognitive tendencies that manifest themselves as
language is produced and processed 4. they apply during individual usage events 5. the cumulative effect of their application over multiple usage events
creates grammar (109)
Each of the various extant cognitive semantic models represent the social/cognitive
mechanics of semantic change in slightly different ways, with different foci. In turn, these
models have implications for an understanding of the function of na-, which is polysemous both
synchronically and diachronically.
28
2.4.1. Grammaticalization
Two of the primary processes of language change at the semantic level are lexicalization
and grammaticalization. Hopper and Traugott (1993) define grammaticalization as, “the change
whereby lexical terms and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical
functions, and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (1).
Bybee and Dahl (1989), following Givón (1973), write, “Perhaps the best way to characterize the
semantic changes that take place in grammaticization is to say that specific components of
lexical meaning are generally lost” (61).
2.4.2. Lexicalization
Lexicalization can be broadly understood as the process through which new words or
‘lexical items’ are created, and languages increase the size of their word inventory, or ‘lexicon’.
While lexicalization may occur in several ways, including through abbreviation or lexical
borrowing in situations of language contact, the process that is observed in the lexicalization of
Russian verbal predicates with spatial-aspectual prefixes is a type of compounding. In this
process, two distinct lexical elements with distinct semantics are fused into a compound root,
which then becomes entrenched through repeated usage events to the extent that its original
compositional meaning is no longer apparent; in other words, the compound root itself becomes
perceived and reanalyzed as a simple root by speakers, no longer merely the sum of the two roots
that comprise it.
Brinton and Traugott (2005) further explain this outcome of the lexicalization process:
Lexicalization is the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use a syntactic
construction or word formation as a new contentful form with formal AND semantic properties
that are not completely derivable or predictable from the constituents of the construction or the
word formation pattern. Over time there may be further loss of internal constituency and the item
may become more lexical.
29
(96)
2.4.3. Unidirectionality
The concept of unidirectionality is essential to a usage-based account of language change.
This concept implies that processes of language change such as grammaticalization and
lexicalization, almost without exception, occur in only one direction.
The relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization is complex and subject to
debate. Himmelman (2004) states,
“Problems concerning the boundary between lexicalization and grammaticalization (and lexicon
and grammar, for that matter) arise from the fact that lexical generality is not a matter of all or
none. That is, the alternative is not between, on the one hand, grammatical patterns consisting of
a highly general grammatical element (b) and a large host-class (A) and, on the other hand, a
string of two (or more) specific lexical items. Instead, there are a number of intermediate
possibilities, i.e. patterns which are more general than a fixed lexicalized phrase but less general
than the typical grammatical pattern…The make-up of a grammatical pattern may be opaque and
have clear features of non-compositionality but at the same time it may involve a highly general
grammatical marker which is applicable to a large number of lexical items...In the view
developed here, grammaticalization and lexicalization both are processes of conventionalization.
The hypothesized direction of development for all constructions (in the vast majority of
cases) is from LESS GRAMMATICALIZED → MORE GRAMMATICALIZED on the grammaticalization
axis and from LESS LEXICALIZED → MORE LEXICALIZED on the lexicalization axis (critically,
these are not the same axis). Naturally, grammaticalization and lexicalization processes of
constructions take place at different historical points and at varying speeds.
The language change processes taking place in multidimensional cognitive/social
semantic space, therefore, constitute a cycle. At all times in a language, there are lexical items
undergoing semantic broadening, allowing them to occur in more generalized semantic contexts
(with greater type frequency), and, in some cases, to come to serve an exclusively grammatical
function. There are also, at all times, lexical items in varying stages of grammaticalization being
30
compounded with other lexical items in agglutinative and fusional morphological processes and
undergoing routinization and entrenchment (greater token frequency) through multiple usage
events; these then become the ‘simple’ lexical items used in the next round of
grammaticalization, semantic broadening, and lexical compounding.
From a usage-based theoretical perspective, the existence of a lexical-grammatical
continuum along which all morphemes, including aspectual prefixes, move unidirectionally over
time is supported by diachronic linguistic evidence (Lehmann (1982/1995); Heine and Reh
(1984); Heine et al. (1991); Hopper and Traugott (1993); Traugott (1991a); Bybee et al. (1994)
and Bybee (2007)).
2.4.4. Application to Russian na-
Two points from Bybee and Dahl (1989) that are highly relevant to the current study are:
● not all members of a closed grammatical class (e.g., Russian/Slavic verbal
aspectual prefixes) are at the same stage in the grammaticalization process
● there is often a lack of correlation between structural/positional and semantic
classes in a language due to the grammaticization of the members of the class at
different times in the history of the language; Bybee and Dahl use the example of
English, which has past (V-ed), future (will + V) and perfect (have + past
participle) tenses all expressed in different positional classes, while a single
structural class, modal auxiliaries, contains tense (will and shall), deontic
modality (must and should), and epistemic modality (may and might). Overall,
“membership in structural class [of a gram] is not determined solely by its
meaning, but at least in part by chronological coincidence” (61). In Russian and
other Slavic languages, for example, aspect is expressed both through prefixes
31
and through suffixes--different positional classes--and, for some predicates,
through a combination of the two.
Verbal aspectual prefixes in Russian constitute a closed class, many of whose members
are at different stages of grammaticalization. Russian aspectual prefixes originate as spatial
prepositions (Shull 2003:14, Dickey 2012:71, Deo 2012:163). In the grammaticalization process
in Russian, each of these spatial prepositions are being, diachronically, gradually prefixed to a
widening array of predicates, causing them to be more semantically polysemous and to have a
more generalized meaning in some contexts. In the lexicalization process in Russian, specific
prefix/predicate compounds at various points on the grammaticalization spectrum gradually
undergo semantic fusion and are no longer analyzed as semantically compositional; in other
words, the prefix and predicate together become a single lexical/verbal root.
Because each verbal aspectual prefix in Russian is polysemous, each one has meanings
that are situated, synchronically, along the entire continuum from LESS GRAMMATICALIZED
(positionally independent spatial prepositions) to MORE GRAMMATICALIZED (positionally fixed
verbal markers, seemingly coding only perfective aspect). Similarly, each prefix/predicate
compound exists synchronically somewhere along the lexicalization continuum from LESS
LEXICALIZED (overtly compositional compounds with low token frequency) to MORE
LEXICALIZED (compounds that have lost internal constituency, i.e., whose meanings are no
longer overtly compositional, with high token frequency).
This study ‘maps’ the current position of na- along the grammaticalization spectrum by
means of qualitative and quantitative analysis of its use in modern Russian. Additionally, it will
provide a snapshot of verbal compounds with na- at various stages in the lexicalization process
(from na + VROOT to naVROOT to VROOT) by examining specific na-/predicate compounds that
32
serve as examples of these stages.
33
3. Previous research on verbal aspect in Russian
Foundational research on verbal aspect has been done by Comrie (1976), Forsyth (1970),
Isacenko (1960) and Jakobsen (1936). Extensive research on Russian aspectual prefixes has
already been undertaken by, among many others, Dickey (2000) and (2005), Janda et al. (2013)
and (2011), Janda (forthcoming), (2007), and (1986), Janda and Lyashevskaya (2013), Endresen
et al. (2012), Baydimirova (2010), Filip (2005) and (2004), Svenonius (2004), Polinsky (2006),
and Ramchand (2008) and (2005). This research has approached Russian verbal aspect from
many different theoretical vantage points.
3.1. Formal approaches: Filip, Svenonius, Polinsky
Filip (2005) approaches the question of the semantics of the prefix na- through an
analysis of the case taken by nominal arguments of verbs with na-. According to Filip, na- is a
‘measure prefix’ that, with certain other measure prefixes, “enforce[s] a non-specific indefinite
interpretation of nominal arguments [it] target[s]” (50). Therefore, “[these measure prefixes’]
functionality resembles that of determiners within DPs” (50). Russian has no articles, so case is
the chief means by which definiteness or indefiniteness is expressed in the language. Filip points
out that verbs prefixed with na- do not take nominal arguments in the nominative case, but rather
in the genitive case, expressing a partitive meaning akin to the English “SOME NP”. In this way,
Russian uses na- together with genitive case to express the semantic indefiniteness of the
nominal argument.
Like Janda (2007) and Croft (2012), Filip emphasizes the semantic diversity of Russian
aspectual prefixes: “Slavic verbal prefixes as a whole class have no constant aspectual, or other,
meaning in all of their occurrences, semantically they constitute a highly heterogenous class
exhibiting considerable lexical idiosyncracies” (48). This is reinforced by the fact that, “They
34
have all the characteristics of derivational morphemes, which are difficult to reconcile with the
common view of perfective and imperfective aspect in Slavic languages as grammatical
categories” (48).
The implications of Filip’s findings for this study are encapsulated in the finding, “the
semantic contributions of measure prefixes cannot be assimilated to the semantics of perfectivity,
and they cannot be treated as overt morphological exponents of the perfective operator” (40). In
other words, a more semantically rich account is needed to explain the function of a measure
prefix such as na-, above and beyond simply labeling it a ‘Perfective’ prefix. This study,
however, will differ from Filip (2005) in that it sees the expression of indefiniteness of nominal
arguments of some na- verbs as a secondary effect of the spatio-temporal semantics of na-, rather
than the primary function of na- per se. In other words, the morphosyntactic changes that occur
with the arguments of na- predicates are attributable to and explainable in terms of na-’s broader
cognitive semantics.
Svenonius (2004) gives evidence for the existence of ‘lexical prefixes’, which are to be
contrasted with ‘superlexical’ prefixes, or prefixes possessing a determinable aspectual meaning.
According to Svenonius, lexical prefixes have certain semantic properties which differentiate
them from superlexical prefixes, which can are more productive (i.e., they occur with more
predicates). First, they possess “core spatial meaning”, meaning that they primarily encode
spatial information about the predicate to which they are prefixed. Second, they tend to produce
idiomatic, non-overtly compositional meanings when prefixed to predicates, whereas
superlexical prefixes generally express only Perfective aspect. Finally, lexical prefixes are
attached directly to the verbal root in cases where a verb has more than one prefix.
This distinction between prefixes with preposition-like uses which often combine
35
idiomatically with verbs on the one hand, and prefixes with adverb-like uses that combine
semantically “transparently” with verbs is another way of drawing attention to the difference
between the derivational morpheme-like behavior of many prefixes and the current theoretical
understanding of them as inflectional morphemes, which Filip (2004) also notes. However, many
individual prefixes, including na-, have both functions. The present study proposes that, rather
than classifying prefixes by means of a strict dichotomy of ‘lexical’ and ‘superlexical’, prefixes
be classified according to where they fall on the lexicalization and grammaticalization continua.
This system better accounts for prefixes such as na-, which in some cases behaves as a
lexicalizing, derivational morpheme and in others seems to be a fully grammaticalized,
inflectional morpheme.
Polinsky (2006) discusses these lexical and grammatical functions of Russian aspect in a
study that draws upon evidence from heritage speakers of Russian in the United States.
Polinsky’s summary of the two main approaches to Russian aspect is worth repeating: “Under
the first approach, aspect is viewed as a grammatical phenomenon, with the grammar somewhat
marred by diachronic residues and lexical exceptions...According to the second approach, aspect
is a lexical characteristic, with some degree of grammaticization” (226). In other words, under
the first interpretation, aspectual pairs are construed by speakers as two slightly grammatically
different forms of what is essentially the same lexeme, whereas under the second, aspectual pairs
are perceived as separate lexical items.
This is another way of framing the problem mentioned by Filip (2005); if aspectual
prefixes are inflectional, then the first, grammatical account is more accurate, but if the prefixes
are derivational, then ‘aspectual pairs’ are better understood as distinct linguistic items. This
problem of the lack of applicability of this strict morphological dichotomy to the linguistic data
36
is resolved if we apply the lexicalization-grammaticalization continuum proposed by Peskova
(2013), discussed below, to Russian aspect.
Polinsky gives evidence from American Russian (Russian spoken as a heritage language)
in support of this second interpretation. She writes, “If American Russian serves as a litmus test
of any kind, Russian aspect is clearly a lexical category...verbs no longer form aspectual pairs.
Rather, they are retained as separate entities or just one form, perfective or imperfective, is
retained and the other is lost” (226). She finds that verbs of achievement and accomplishment
under Vendler’s (1957) classification tend to be retained only in the perfective form, while
“verbs denoting processes and states...are often lexicalized in the imperfective form” (227). She
concludes, “since [Russian speakers] no longer have the relevant morphosyntactic oppositions of
Full Russian, for them the verb dat’ ‘give’ or sidet’ ‘sit’ is just a lexical item without a specified
aspectual value” (231). It is likely that aspectual prefixes such as na- often provide lexical
information in the case of speakers with “Full Russian” as well, rather than simply indicating an
aspectual (grammatical) opposition.
3.2. Cognitive approaches: Janda, Croft, Baydimirova, Endresen et al.
The previous three studies of Russian aspect were framed within a formal approach to
linguistic study, approaches that posit a clear distinction between lexicon and grammar. As a
result, issues of na-’s description are centered on the question of whether it belongs to the first or
the second category. The studies to be reviewed in this section, by contrast, are based in
cognitive grammar and thus focus on meaning, highlighting the differing semantic construals
offered by differing forms (Janda (2007b) and Croft (2012)) and the role of prototype categories
and semantic extension (Baydimirova (2010), Endresen et al. (2012), and Dickey (2007)).
Vendler’s approach is also used by Janda (2007b) and Croft (2012); Croft (2012) explains “the
37
derivational potential of a Russian verb root,” (116) by drawing upon Janda’s (2007b) types of
Perfective forms:
Natural Perfective, which appears to be closest to the Imperfective basic form in meaning, apart
from the difference in aspectual construal; Specialized Perfective, which differs in its lexical
semantics from the Imperfective; Complex Acts, which in our terms profiles temporal boundaries
of the Imperfective...and Single Acts, which are the semelfactive (cyclic achievement) construal
of undirected activity Imperfectives.
(115-116)
These myriad event construals mean that a single root can, taking different aspectual
prefixes, give rise to a ‘cluster’ of related verbs: govorit’ ‘speak’, to give one example, renders
nagovorit’ ‘gossip’ and ugovorit’ ‘convince’ as Specialized Perfectives, dogovorit’ ‘finish
talking’, pogovorit’ ‘talk a bit’ and razgovorit’/razgovarivat’ ‘get talking’ as Complex Acts, and
dogovorit’sya ‘come to an agreement’ and nagovorit’sya ‘say enough’ as Single Acts.
The prefix na- seems to instantiate all of these Perfective types: Croft (2012) gives
napisat’ as a prototypical Natural Perfective form, while with other Perfective verbs na- can both
profile temporal boundaries and significantly alter the lexical meaning, as we shall see, and an
example of Single Act predicate formed with na-, nagovorit’sya, has just been mentioned. The
present research will use the modified version of this classification of predicate types used in
Peskova (2013).
This supports the argument that na- is a polysemous aspectual marker, not only in terms
of the different idiosyncratic semantic meanings it contributes in various Specialized Perfectives,
but also in its function as a resultative or perfective marker. Janda (2007b) and Croft (2012) both
discuss the many meanings that prefixation and infixation can lend to a single verb root, leading
to the existence of a ‘cluster’; in other words, rather than simply forming Perfective or
Imperfective ‘pairs’, verbal roots take several spatial prefixes, resulting in an array of related
lexemes. Verbal prefixes such as na- can form polysemous clusters of their own and vary in
38
meaning according to the verb to which they are attached.
The aspectual meaning contributed by the prefix is a metaphorical extension of the spatial
meaning that the prefix possesses as an independent preposition.9 This metaphorical extension of
spatial meaning can be captured through a radial category analysis of prefixes, which has been
undertaken by several studies, including Endresen et al. (2012) and Dickey (2007). Here I will
discuss one such study, Baydimirova (2010), in greater detail. This particular study is similar to
my own in that it focuses on a single prefix with relatively high type frequency; according to
Endresen et al. (2012), o-/ob-/obo-, the prefix analyzed by Baydimirova, forms 226 Natural
Perfectives, while na- is next with 177 Natural Perfectives. Both prefixes, in other words, have
similar distributional patterns, somewhere between, on the one hand, the “small” prefixes with
much lower type frequencies, and on the other, po-, the prefix analyzed by Dickey (2007), which
forms 417 Natural Perfectives and, according to Dickey (2007) and several others, is becoming a
default perfectivizer in Russian.
Baydirimova (2010) applies a radial category analysis to the group of aspectual prefixes
o-, ob-, and obo-. Much of this study is occupied with the discussion of whether these prefixes
represent one or multiple morphemes. According to Baydimirova (2010), Krongauz (1998)
claims that what was once an original single morpheme has now become two distinct
morphemes, o- and ob- (which themselves have overlapping allomorphs). The morpheme ob-
“has a spatial meaning that is most evident in motion verbs (e.g., letet’ ‘fly’, ob-letet’ ‘fly
around’), while the morpheme o-, found mostly in factitives, denotes the imposition or
acquisition of a property (e.g. mrachnyj ‘dark, gloomy’ -- o-mrachit’ ‘darken, cloud’” (21).
The spatial meaning corresponding roughly to English ‘around’ is very similar to that of
9 To give an exemplary case of this, when the verb vinit’ ‘accuse’ takes the prefix iz- ‘of, from, out of’, the resulting verb is izvinit’ ‘excuse, pardon’.
39
o-/ob- ‘about/around’ as a preposition. This meaning is expanded in a range of ways from the
prototype meaning referring to spatial motion around an object. Following Taylor (1995), which
builds on research in cognitive linguistics to propose a number of tenets of prototype theory,
Baydimirova (2010) explains, “The extensions of the prototype come in two types according to
two basic cognitive mechanisms: metonymy and metaphor. Metonymical extensions occur when
an image schema is reduced to its part or is re-interpreted with a different focus. Metaphorical
extensions are those that apply the same image schema to a different domain. Particularly, they
account for the shift from a spatial domain to the non-spatial domains of human relations,
emotions, personal features, etc.” (43) Metonymical and metaphorical extensions of the
prototype play an identical role in the semantic development of na-, as we shall see, and my
study of na- also follows Baydimirova (2010) in proposing a radial category model for the
meanings expressed by the prefix.
Baydimirova (2010) proposes a radial category model motivated on the large scale by a
twofold extension of the semantic profile from the prototype. The prototypical meaning of o-/ob-
/obo-, MOVE AROUND AN OBJECT, gives rise to 14 related subcategories, where “each
subcategory corresponds to a different semantic contribution of a prefix to a simplex stem” (42).
These subcategories can be divided into the two larger groups, “driven by the two different
interpretations of the prototype: proximity and keeping a distance from the Landmark versus
contacting and affecting the Landmark” (43). Baydimirova labels the primary, central nodes of
these two subgroups PASS BY and SURROUND AND ENCLOSE, respectively. Each of these is
connected to the prototype meaning, and both branch out in multiple directions to form the two
main subgroups Baydimirova refers to.
Both of these groups, in turn, consist of (metonymical) variations on the literal spatial
40
reading of the MOVE AROUND AN OBJECT meaning as well as metaphorical extensions of this
meaning. Within the group based on the PASS BY meaning--itself a metonymic interpretation of
the MOVE AROUND AN OBJECT meaning, focusing on only part of the Trajector’s potential Path
(the Figure’s Path, in Talmy’s typology)--there are two semantic branches based on both
metonymic and metaphorical extensions of PASS BY: “The first one focuses the distance of the
Trajector from the Landmark (Subcategories 3 OVERTAKE and 4 OUTDO), while the other
focuses the bypassing itself which is metaphorically extended to avoiding / missing some crucial
point of a situation (Subcategories 5 MISTAKE, 6 DECEIVE, 7 OVERDO and 8 METAPHORICAL
PASS BY)” (43).
Here, Subcategory 3 remains a spatial interpretation of the prototype, with two crucial
differences: both Trajector and Landmark are construed as moving, and a specific section of the
schema, namely the part of the Trajector’s path where it moves in front of the Landmark, is
focused on, making this an example of a metonymic extension. Subcategory 4, on the other hand,
is a non-spatial metaphorical extension of Subcategory 3, applicable to “a larger domain of
human relations with various kinds of competitions” (48). Similarly, Subcategories 5-8 consist of
the spatial PASS BY applied to other, non-spatial domains.
The SURROUND AND ENCLOSE meaning itself differs from MOVE AROUND AN OBJECT
and PASS BY in its focus; while PASS BY foregrounds the movement of the Trajector and MOVE
AROUND AN OBJECT is neutral in focus, SURROUND AND ENCLOSE foregrounds the Landmark
and focuses attention on how it is affected by the Trajector. The subgroup centered on the
SURROUND AND ENCLOSE meaning includes different meanings wherein the Landmark is
foregrounded and given varying spatial construals; AFFECT A SURFACE involves a construal of
the Landmark as a surface, while ENVELOP involves a construal of the Landmark as a three-
41
dimensional object. The meaning IMPOSE/ACQUIRE A NEW FEATURE has a metonymic
relationship with SURROUND AND ENCLOSE focusing on the part of the interaction between the
Trajector and Landmark in which the Landmark is acted upon. Finally, the subgroup includes
metaphorical extensions of the spatial construals (METAPHORICAL SURROUND, METAPHORICAL
ENVELOP).
The final node of the radial category model for o-/ob-/obo- is AFFECT A NUMBER OF
OBJECTS, which, according to Baydimirova, “is motivated directly by the prototype” (51). This
node is not a member of the PASS BY or SURROUND AND ENCLOSE subgroups because it
instantiates a distinct image schema including multiple Landmarks, as opposed to the single
Landmark in the base image schema for the other meanings.
The final finding from Baydimirova (2010) of relevance to the present study relates to the
existence of Natural Perfectives with the prefixes o-/ob-/obo-. Once again, Natural Perfectives
are one of the four types of perfective verbs posited by Janda (2007b), where the perfective form
of the verb is basically equivalent to that of the imperfective, apart from the difference in
aspectual construal. Baydimirova (2010) looks at Natural Perfectives with o-/ob-/obo- and finds
that their distribution is isometric with that of all perfectives that take o-/ob-/obo-; in other
words, all of their meanings fall within the radial category analysis based on the MOVE AROUND
AN OBJECT prototype. This finding implies that o-/ob-/obo- is only prefixed to a semantically
limited set of verbs that allow a spatial or metaphorical construal related to the MOVE AROUND
AN OBJECT prototype or one of the 14 subgroups posed by Baydimirova (2010).
The main semantic subgroup into which the Natural Perfectives with o-/ob-/obo- fall is
IMPOSE / ACQUIRE A NEW FEATURE. This is explained by the fact that, of all of the subgroups,
this is the semantic class with the applicability to the widest range of domains. Yet IMPOSE /
42
ACQUIRE A NEW FEATURE is still a metaphorical extension of SURROUND AND ENCLOSE, which,
Baydimirova suggests, is the crucial factor allowing predicates with this construal to take o-/ob-
/obo-, rather than the prefix itself having simply become grammaticized and therefore applicable
to a wider range of predicates.
In case of metaphorical extensions the semantic contribution of the prefix becomes relatively
abstract and therefore less perceptible when compared to the simplex verbal base. Moreover, the
simplex verbal bases of Natural Perfectives already have the meaning IMPOSE / ACQUIRE A
NEW FEATURE (pečalit’ ‘sadden’ – o-pečalit’ ‘sadden’) and this creates the illusion of a zero
semantic contribution of the prefix. However, what actually takes place here is the overlap of the
prefixal and simplex base’s semantics which makes it possible for the verb to attach this
particular prefix.
(58)
In other words, according to Baydimirova (2010), even though o-/ob-/obo- might seem to
be able to function as a “semantically empty” prefix due to the fact that it functions simply as a
perfectivizer with many Natural Perfectives, it is actually always carrying the semantic spatio-
temporal information outlined in Baydimirova’s radial category analysis.
As stated before, the present study does not make a similar claim regarding na-
predicates; investigating the semantic isometricity of na- Natural Perfectives with other na-
perfective predicates would require a more exhaustive compilation of predicates than this study
undertakes.10
The findings of the present study are similar to Baydimirova’s findings with respect to o-
/ob-/obo-. Baydimirova’s (2010) primary finding, that the cluster of aspectual prefixes o-/ob-
/obo- are polysemous, but share a single spatial prototype, and that the semantics of these
prefixes can be modeled using a radial category analysis, will be echoed in the present study,
which focuses on a prefix, na-, belonging to the same semantic and morphosyntactic class as o- 10 However, the radial category model proposed in this study for na- could be used in future research to confirm or deny the existence of this isometricity and either lend support to or cast doubt on the Overlap Hypothesis.
43
/ob-/obo-. This study proposes a radial category model to account for the polysemous semantics
of na- that is similar to the one proposed for o-/ob-/obo- in Baydimirova (2010), in terms of its
structure. Both models establish a central prototype with a prototypical image schema and
subcategories that are related to the central node via either metonymic modification of the image
schema or metaphorical application of the prototypical image schema or a modified image
schema to a non-physical domain.
3.3. Constructional/Diachronic approaches: Peskova
In addition to adopting the cognitive semantic approach taken by Baydimirova, the
analysis here also includes a focus on diachronic approaches. The usage of the prefix na- falls
along a grammatical-lexical developmental continuum for Russian aspectual prefixes and
predicate types that is analogous to that proposed for Czech in Peskova (2013). Peskova (2013)
analyzes frequency patterns of aspectual prefixes in Czech. Analyzing the occurrence of the
aspectual predicates za-, po-, na-, do- with Complex Predicate types, including Natural
Perfectives, Specialized Perfectives, and Complex Act Perfectives, as well as Simplex Predicate
types (hypothesized to have developed through extended lexicalization of Complex Predicates)
such as New Prefixed Perfectives, Perfectives Without Verbal Roots, and Prefixed Imperfectives,
the study conducts an analysis of the level of grammaticalization and lexicalization of each
prefix.
It is assumed that lexical items with higher token frequencies undergo lexicalization,
given that the routinization of the combination of prefix and predicate will lead to greater and
more widespread use (Trousdale 2008:163, from Lipka 2002). Conversely, aspectual prefixes
that are more ‘advanced’ along the continuum toward grammaticalization will have a higher type
frequency, with their decreasingly strong connection to their original spatial meaning (as a
44
preposition) allowing them to be used with a wider array of predicates (Bybee et al. 1994: 8,
Traugott and Trousdale 2010: 36). Peskova (2013) writes: “This thesis argues that all semantic
type categories in the analysis show variation in the semantic contribution of the prefix to the
complex predicate. This variation reflects the continuum of gradual processes of
grammaticalization that are constantly adapting to emerging constructional exemplars” (83). The
present study claims, similarly, that the semantic contribution of na- to the complex predicate
varies across semantic type categories.
These processes of grammaticalization occur in tandem with processes of lexicalization
and entrenchment of given construals of a prefix/predicate compound. Peskova (2013) proposes
the following continuum for predicate types in Czech, which allows for the mapping of aspectual
prefixes onto the semantic space based on their co-occurrence with the distinct predicate types. It
should be noted that the compositionality of the prefix/predicate compound decreases both from
left to right and from top to bottom along the chart, so that Specialized Perfectives and Complex
Act Perfectives are generally more overtly compositional and Natural Perfectives and Prefixed
Imperfectives are generally less compositional. This decreased compositionality is a result of
routinization and entrenchment of the prefix/predicate compound, in the case of the most
lexicalized predicates, and semantic bleaching and broadening of the prefix, in the case of the
most grammaticalized predicates.
45
Fig. 3.a. Co-occurrence of Czech verbal/aspectual prefixes with predicate types
This approach of mapping aspectual prefixes and predicate types onto a lexical-
grammatical continuum is well-suited to the description of grammatical aspect in Czech, as well
as in Russian. It also resolves the problem of the inapplicability of the strict morphological
dichotomy discussed in Section 3 to na- (i.e., whether it is a derivational or inflectional
morpheme). This is because the morphosyntactic expression of verbal aspect in both languages is
a diachronic process that is constantly in flux; specific combinations of prefixes and predicates
Specialized Perfectives Complex Act Perfectives
Natural Perfectives
New Prefixed Perfectives
Perfectives Without Verbal Roots
Prefixed Imperfectives
Grammaticalization Processes
Less Grammaticalized → More Grammaticalized
Lexicalization Processes
Less Lexicalized → M
ore Lexicalized
DO-
PO-, ZA-
NA-
46
may occupy different points on a spectrum from less grammaticalized → more grammaticalized
and less lexicalized → more lexicalized.
As a prefix, na- co-occurs with all of the predicate types mentioned above in Russian, as
will be seen. Therefore, na- evinces various levels of grammaticalization and lexicalization in
different constructions (i.e., with different predicates). Investigating which predicate types na-
can be prefixed to and the comparative frequency of its co-occurrence with each type, as this
study does, will allow it to be mapped onto the space of the lexical-grammatical continuum, as
Peskova (2013) does with Czech aspectual prefixes. Peskova (2013) is taken as a model for this
quantitative analysis of the distribution of na-, and Baydimirova (2010) is taken as a model for
the qualitative analysis that follows.
In addition to mapping na- onto the lexical-grammatical continuum, this study will take
the additional step of attempting to explain why the prefix na- occupies the space that it currently
does on the lexical-grammatical continuum through the proposal of a radial category analysis for
the several meanings of na-, and an explanation of the diachronic processes of semantic change
that have led to the use of na- in different constructions with different predicate types, with
different meanings. Most of these diachronic processes are outlined in the literature on
grammaticalization and lexicalization, including Hopper & Traugott (1993), Bybee (2003) and
(2004), Brinton & Traugott (2005), and Sweetser (1988), Lehmann (2002), and Trousdale
(2008), among others.
47
4. The case of na-
This section will present an analysis of the use of na- as a verbal aspectual prefix in
Russian. I begin with a description of the use of na- as an independent preposition in Russian.
Section 4.2. provides a quantitative corpus-based analysis of na,- focused on na-’s distribution
among various types of complex and simplex predicates in modern Russian. It will be shown
that, in combination with different prbedicate types, na- has a range of uses and meanings which
fall along different points of the lexicalization and grammaticalization continua in
multidimensional semantic space.
A detailed qualitative synchronic description of the semantics of na- is presented in
Section 5. This description supports a radial category analysis of na-.
4.1. na- as an independent preposition in Russian
As an independent preposition in Russian, na usually governs referents that are located
below and adjacent to preceding referents in physical space, with a meaning similar to English
‘on’.
1. kniga lezhi-t na stol-e book lie-3SP on table-Loc The book is lying on the table. 2. мир на пороге эпохи гонки киберооружений
mir na porog-e epokh-i gonk-i kiberooruzhenij world on threshold-Loc age-G race-G cyber arms-G The world is on the threshold of an age of a cyber-arms race.
(http://rus.postimees.ee/3382639)
In addition to this Locative meaning, na- can also describe an allative movement of a
referent, governing the referent toward which the movement is oriented:
3. on posh-ol na rabot-u he go(Pf)-SMP to work-Acc He went to work.
48
4. ja polozhi-l knig-u na stol I lay-SMP book-Acc on table(Acc) I laid the book on the table.
In the examples above, na indicates the location of the referents stol ‘table’ and avtobus
‘bus’ below and adjacent to other referents, kniga ‘book’ and ludej ‘people’, in physical space.
This locative meaning is also morphologically coded by the (locative) Prepositional case ending
-e on stol and avtobus in examples 1 and 2. In examples 3 and 4, na indicates that the referents
rabota ‘work’ and stol ‘table’ serve as goals toward which the referents on ‘he’ and kniga ‘book’
are moving. This allative use of na is morphologically coded by the Accusative case feminine
ending -u for rabotu (the Russian Accusative case masculine ending is indistinguishable from the
Nominative case ending; both are Ø).
Some of the meanings of the prefix na- proposed in this model draw upon spatial
meanings put forth in Brugman and Lakoff (1988), who focus on English over. In their
discussion on the use of image schemas to describe the spatial semantics of adpositions, they
write, “What is needed is an oriented cognitive topology with elementary structures (paths,
bounded regions), orientations (vertical), and means of fitting them together in an overall gestalt”
(3). Brugman and Lakoff propose a radial category model to account for all uses of over as both
an adposition and a verbal prefix. They propose a prototypical image schema for the adposition
over which consists of a Trajector, a Landmark, and a Path located above the Landmark
physically. In contrast to na-, whose image schema requires the contact of the Path with the
Landmark, “the central sense [of over] is neutral on the issue of contact” (295). The prototypical
image schema for na- also differs from that of over in terms of the endpoint of the Path; while
for over the endpoint is a horizontal boundary corresponding to the physical edge of the
Landmark, for na-, there is either no endpoint of the Path implied (as in Subcategory 1), or the
endpoint is the Landmark itself.
49
Another point of comparison between na- and over is in the relation of their senses as
adpositions to the senses they possess as prefixes. While over has a diverse array of senses as an
adposition, as a prefix, it seems to be less polysemous; in the words of Brugman and Lakoff, it
“indicates excess” (317), through employment of the MORE IS UP and ACTIVITY IS A
JOURNEY metaphors, as well as having less regular metaphorical uses as a prefix that draw
upon specific uses of over as a adposition. In addition, over has contrastive metaphorical uses as
a prefix and adposition that are not analogous to senses found with na-, such as, for example,
overlook and look over, overtake and take over, overcome and come over. na as a preposition is
less polysemous, with a Locative/Contact meaning similar to English ‘on’, and an Allative
meaning similar to English ‘to’ (there is a more common Russian preposition, v, that corresponds
more closely to Allative), which give rise to the meanings in the physical domain found in
Subcategories 1 and 2 in the model for na- proposed below. Similarly to over, na- has
metaphorical uses that employ these image schemas, but dissimilarly, it has other, more
grammaticalized meanings (seen in Subcategories 6 and 7). We will now turn to a discussion of
the usage of na- as a verbal aspectual prefix.
4.2. na- as a verbal aspectual prefix in Russian
As a verbal aspectual prefix, na- has semantic uses overtly related to its use as a
preposition, as well as more semantically opaque functions that have developed diachronically
through the metaphorical extension or metonymic modification of the original spatial meaning.
In these cases, na- contains lexical information that changes the meaning of the root to which it
is affixed, so that the na- + VROOT compound undergoes partial or full lexicalization and can no
longer simply be considered an inflected form of the original verb root, but rather a new lexical
item. In cases of full lexicalization, a na-prefixed predicate is no longer perceived as a
50
compound, but as a simplex verb stem that may subsequently undergo prefixation by another
verbal prefix. Finally, on the MORE GRAMMATICALIZED end of the spectrum shown in Fig. 1, na-
sometimes appears to function purely as a marker of perfective aspect in verbs such as napisat’
‘write’ leading to an interpretation of na- + VROOT as an inflected (perfective) form of the
(imperfective) verbal root (e.g. pisat’--napisat’).
4.2.1. Analysis of Synchronic Lexicalization and Grammaticalization of na-
This section examines the synchronic distribution of na- between different types of
complex and simplex predicates. First, I explain the typology of complex and simplex predicates
used in this study. Following this, will be an explanation of how predicates for this synchronic
analysis were selected and classified within the typology. A preliminary quantitative distribution
of na- among complex and simplex predicate types will then be given. Finally, a discussion of
the path of development of na- and other Russian aspectual prefixes along the lexicalization and
grammaticalization continua will take place and the synchronic position of na- will be mapped
onto these continua.
4.2.1.1. Typology of Complex and Simplex Predicate Types
The present study makes use of a modified version of the typology of predicate types
outlined in Janda (2007b), Janda et al. (2007) and Croft (2012). The present study will borrow
the terminology for predicate types used in Janda et al. (2007). These predicate types are based
on semantic criteria that will be outlined in this chapter. All predicate types within this typology
are located at different points along both the lexicalization and grammaticalization continua. As
each predicate type is described, its position along both of these continua will be discussed.
4.2.1.1.1. Complex Predicate Types
Complex predicates in Russian are classified into three types. In each of these types, a
51
prefix and a simplex predicate are combined to form another distinct predicate. This prefixed
predicate is compositional; in other words, the semantic contribution of the prefix to the
predicate as a whole can be discerned. However, each type differs in the semantic contribution of
the prefix to the simplex predicate, as will be shown.
Specialized Perfectives (SP) are complex predicates in which the added prefix adds
lexical meaning to the simplex root, resulting in a distinct lexeme. The lexical information added
by the prefix may be overtly related to the prefix’ spatial meaning when it is used as an
independent preposition, or it might be related by metaphorical extension to the prefix’ spatial
meaning. In these cases, the semantic contribution of the prefix may not be transparent.
Nevertheless, full lexicalization has not occurred, as the two components of the Specialized
Perfective are still analyzed as contributing distinct, if opaque, meanings, and the resulting
meaning of the predicate, though lexically distinct, is still related to the meaning of the
unprefixed simplex predicate. Examples of Specialized Perfectives with na- include nagovorit’
‘gossip’ from govorit’ ‘speak’, najti ‘find’ from idti ‘go’, and napomnit’ ‘remind’ from pomnit’
‘remember’.
Natural Perfectives (NP) are complex predicates in which the prefix does not appear to
add lexical information but rather functions as inflectional/grammatical marker of perfective
aspect. Whether this apparent lack of lexical contribution is due to full semantic bleaching and
grammaticalization of the prefix, or a result of semantic overlap with lexical information that is
already expressed in the simplex predicate (Janda et al. 2013:9), the function of a prefix such as
na- in Natural Perfectives is at its most semantically general. As previously stated, the question
of whether verbal prefixes have truly developed into fully grammaticalized markers of
perfectivity in Russian is beyond the scope of this study. It is simply hypothesized here that
52
heavily grammaticalized uses of verbal prefixes such as na- are are a logical result of processes
of implicature and inferencing that re-interpret them as markers indicating reaching a temporal
goal or endpoint. Examples of Natural Perfectives with na- include napisat’ ‘write’ from pisat’
‘write’, narisovat’ ‘draw, paint’ from risovat’ ‘draw, paint’, and nauchit’ ‘learn, teach’ from
uchit’ ‘learn, teach’.
Complex Act Perfectives (CAP) are predicates in which the prefix does not appear to add
lexical meaning and instead delimits or profiles a specific part of the event described by the
simplex root. This means that the function of prefixes in Complex Act Perfectives, as markers of
a temporal aspectual category, is more grammaticalized than their function in Specialized
Perfectives, but less grammaticalized (less generalized) than their function in Natural
Perfectives.
One example of a Complex Act Perfective with na- is the predicate napolnit’ ‘fill’ from
polnit’ ‘fill’. While napolnit’ and polnit’ seem to express the same lexical meaning, napolnit’
delimits the end of the event described, with a function closer to ‘fill up’.
4.2.1.1.2. Simplex Predicate Types
Broadly, a simplex predicate can be defined as any predicate whose semantic meaning
cannot be derived from its morphological constituents. This study, however, is particularly
interested in prefixed simplex predicates; that is, simplex predicates with verbal prefixes such as
na-. In these predicates, a process of semantic fusion of the (originally semantically distinct)
prefix and verbal root has occurred and partial or full lexicalization has taken place. This study
uses the typology of simplex predicate types found in Peskova (2013) and applies it to na-
predicates in Russian. In this typology, simplex predicates with verbal prefixes are classified into
three types. These types are distinguished in terms of their degree of compositionality and fall
53
along the lexicalization continuum from less compositional to non-compositional.
New Prefixed Perfectives (NPP) are predicates in which the prefix contributes meaning
that substantially changes the meaning of the original simplex predicate. As a result, the semantic
compositionality of the predicate has become less transparent and less compositional and it has
undergone partial lexicalization and reanalysis as a new simplex predicate. New Prefixed
Perfectives, because they are analyzed as simplex predicates, can subsequently take additional
prefixes, resulting in new complex predicates with ‘stacked’ prefixes. Some examples of na- in
New Prefixed Perfectives include prednaznachit’ ‘designate, assign’ from naznachit’ ‘appoint’,11
and ponaehkat’ ‘overrun’ from naekhat’ ‘run over, criticize’.12 Other possible New Prefixed
Perfectives are najti ‘find’ from idti ‘go on foot (Det.)’ and nakzat’ ‘punish’ from kazat’ ‘show’.
Both of these predicates are considered in greater detail in 5; here it is sufficient to state that
there are arguments for classifying these two predicates either as Specialized Perfectives or as
New Prefixed Perfectives (as they are in the present study), depending on the extent to which one
believes they have lexicalized. It can be argued that the addition of na- substantially changes the
meaning of the verbal root, creating a new lexicalized, NPP. Ivanova (personal communication)
notes that najti and nakazat’ both can take additional prefixes, rendering ponajti ‘gather in a
group’ and ponakazat’ ‘punish a little’.
Perfectives Without Verbal Roots (PWVR) are simplex predicates consisting of a verbal
prefix and a completely fossilized verbal root. In other words, the prefix has been attached
diachronically to a verbal root that, synchronically, no longer functions independently. Because
the fossilized verbal root is no longer recognizable as an independent predicate, Perfectives
Without Verbal Roots are completely non-compositional and have undergone full lexicalization
11 From znachit’ ‘mean, signify’ 12 From ekhat’ ‘go by vehicle (determinate)
54
and reanalysis as (unprefixed) simplex predicates. An example of a Perfective Without Verbal
Root with na- is nachat’ ‘begin’; chat’ is a fossilized verbal root that has no independent
function in modern Russian.
Prefixed Imperfectives (PI) are prefixed simplex predicates that are non-compositional
and, unlike (NPPs) and (PWVRs), have a default imperfective construal. Because the path of
semantic development of prefixed simplex predicates involves the lexicalization and reanalysis
of complex perfective predicates, the vast majority of prefixed simplex predicates retain this
default perfective construal and derive imperfective partners through the process of imperfective
infixation (e.g. nachat’ -- nachinat’ ‘begin’) or analogous prefixation of the imperfective partner
of the non-prefixed root, if the non-prefixed root is itself perfective (e.g. nanesti -- nanosit’
‘inflict, strike’). Therefore, the existence of such non-compositional prefixed imperfectives
without perfective partners must be either a result of a prefixed perfective undergoing processes
of both lexicalization and change in its default construal, or full lexicalization of an analogously
prefixed imperfective partner (such as nanosit’ above) occurring together with the loss of the
prefixed perfective partner.
Some examples of Prefixed Imperfectives with na- are the predicates nablyudat’
‘observe’ and nabirat’ ‘compose, levy, dial’. Both of these predicates are prefixed, imperfective
and non-compositional; neither -blyudat’ nor -birat’ is used as an independent predicate in
modern Russian.13
4.2.1.2. Data Selection and Methodology
The scope of this semantic analysis of na- is limited to the most frequent na-prefixed
13 Although nabirat’ is likely the derived secondary imperfective of nabrat’, ‘gather, gain, dial’, the present study considers the semantics of the two predicates as too distinct for them to be considered an aspectual pair. In other words, both predicates, originally aspectual partners, have undergone full lexicalization with different semantic effects, and are now considered independent lexemes.
55
predicates in the corpus. The 40 most frequently occurring predicates with na- in the Russian
National Corpus (RNC) have been analyzed (all predicates used for the semantic analysis in this
Chapter are presented in Appendix A). Although a much larger random sample of na-prefixed
predicates in the RNC might give a more representative depiction of the overall distribution of
na- among different complex and simplex predicate types, analysis of such a sample is beyond
the scope of this study, and a similarly-sized random sample would not necessarily guarantee
representation of all predicate types. Because using the most frequent na- prefixed predicates
guarantees that the most entrenched predicates in each category will be represented, this study
assumes that the comparative distribution of the most frequent na- predicates will be sufficiently
representative of the comparative distribution of na-predicates in normal, non-specialized, non-
idiosyncratic discourse.
Nevertheless, it is hypothesized that token frequency of a given predicate is, in fact,
correlated with predicate type. Kuznetsova (2010a) examines type and token frequency of
prefixed perfectives in the Russian National Corpus, showing that on average, Natural
Perfectives account for 14% of the predicates formed by a given prefix in Russian (ranging from
a low of 1% Natural Perfectives for v- to a high of 33% Natural Perfectives for s-). Additionally,
the Natural Perfective predicates had much higher token frequencies in the RNC than Complex
Act Perfective or Specialized Perfective predicates (median frequency of 107 for Natural
Perfectives, compared to 9.7 for the other prefixed perfectives).
Kuznetsova’s (2010a) findings lead us to believe that a sample of the most (token)
frequent predicate types will include a higher percentage of Natural Perfectives than does the set
of na- predicates as a whole. This simply implies that the larger the sample, the more Specialized
Perfectives and Complex Act Perfectives it will include, as these are an open class including, in
56
the words of Endresen et al. (2012) “occasionalisms” and “marginal verbs” (15). As stated
above, it is believed that the type frequency distribution of na- predicates shown here more
accurately reflects the comparative frequencies of na- predicates used in normal discourse.
Of the 40 most frequent na-predicates in the RNC, 31 were lexically distinct independent
complex or simplex predicates and 9 were derived secondary imperfective partners of a lexically
independent na-predicate.14 Predicates with the impersonal suffix -sya or its allomorphs were
considered lexically distinct from their non-suffixed variant for the purposes of this study. This is
because -sya may give lexical meaning to a predicate, as will be illustrated in Chapter 5. Of the
nine derived secondary imperfective predicates, six were the derived aspectual partners of
complex predicates in the top 40 most frequent na-predicates and therefore do not appear in the
quantitative distributional analysis. The three derived secondary imperfective predicates whose
perfective partners fell outside of the top 40 most frequent na-predicates were considered to be
representing the perfective partners from which they derive; as a result, additional predicates
were added on the graph to the complex predicate classes to which their perfective partners
belong.
4.2.1.3. Classification of Predicates into Types
This section briefly describes the criteria used to classify predicates in the sample in order
to ascertain the type frequency of na-. While the semantic criteria that differentiate the different
complex and simplex predicate types are outlined above in 4.2.1.1, there remain a few predicates
for which further disambiguation on the basis of morphosyntactic criteria is necessary in order to
determine their classification. These are cases where it is unclear whether the na-prefixed
complex predicates meet the semantic criteria for Natural Perfectives (i.e., na- in these predicates
functions as a simple marker of perfectivity) or if they are Specialized or Complex Act 14 Morphosyntactic derivation of secondary imperfectives is described in detail in 4.2.1.3.2.
57
Perfectives (i.e., the function of na- is less grammaticalized). To be classified as a Natural
Perfective for the purposes of the present study, a predicate had to show no significant lexical
(semantic) difference between the unprefixed verbal root and the prefixed complex predicate.
This was ascertained by a search of the each predicate in the data in the Russian Academic
Dictionary (dic.academic.ru), to see if prefixed perfectives were listed under the same entry as
their imperfective base forms (indicating that the difference between the two forms is merely
grammatical) or whether they had their own entry (indicating that they were lexically distinct
from the base form), as well as meeting the morphosyntactic criteria for Natural Perfectives
described below.
The two constructional tests described in the following section, Section 4.2.1.3.1., were
applied to ascertain the level of grammaticalization of the prefix na- in typologically ambiguous
complex predicates and correctly classify such predicates as Natural Perfectives, Specialized
Perfectives, or Complex Act Perfectives.
4.2.1.3.1. Participant Role Assignment
One way to ascertain the level of grammaticalization of na- in typologically ambiguous
na-predicates is to examine the morphological case assigned to the various participants in
constructions with the predicate in question. In Natural Perfectives, verbal prefixes such as na-
have been grammaticalized and do not modify the lexical meaning of the verbal root to which
they are prefixed. The result of this is that participant roles, expressed morphosyntactically
through case assignment, remain the same regardless of whether the perfective or the
imperfective construal of the predicate is being used. This is shown in examples (5a-5b).
Specialized Perfectives and Complex Act Perfectives, on the other hand, involve a shifting of
participant roles expressed through a change in case marking, as seen in example (5c):
58
5.a. Imperfective Simplex Predicate Construction В престольный праздник готовлю всё ― пиво, пироги… V prestol’n-yj prazdnik gotovl-yu vsyo pivo pirogi on feast-Adj holiday prepare-1SG all beer(Acc) pies(Acc) On the feast day, I prepare everything--beer, pies…
5.b. Natural Perfective Construction В престольный праздник приготовлю V prestol’n-yj prazdnik prigotovl-yu on feast-Adj holiday prepare(Pf)-1SG On the feast day, I will prepare всё ― пиво, пироги…
vsyo pivo pirogi all beer(Acc) pies(Acc)
everything--beer, pies…
5.c. Complex Act Perfective Construction В престольный праздник наготовлю
V prestol’n-yj prazdnik nagotovl-yu on feast-Adj holiday prepare(Pf)-1SG
On the feast day, I will prepare всего ― пива, пирогов vs-ego piv-a pirog-ov all-Gen beer-Gen pies-Gen everything--beer, pies…
(From Nikolai Amosov, Golosa vremyon, 1999)
The above examples show the prototypical participant roles for the predicate gotovit’
‘prepare, cook’: in both the construction with the simplex imperfective in (5a) and the
construction with the Natural Perfective prigotovit’ ‘prepare, cook’ (5b), the Patients vsyo
‘everything’, pivo ‘beer’ and pirogi ‘pies’ receive (unmarked) accusative case. In the
construction with the Complex Act Perfective (5c), on the other hand, the genitive case marking
of the Patients reflects a change in the semantic construal of the participants. In this way,
constructional analysis reveals a slight difference in meaning between prigotovit’ and
59
nagotovit’15 and allows for the classification of nagotovit’ as a Specialized Perfective.
4.2.1.3.2. Derivation of Imperfectives
Another constructional test for the disambiguation of Natural Perfectives and other
complex predicate types is whether the ambiguous prefixed predicate derives an imperfective
partner through imperfective infixation. Natural Perfectives such as narisovat’ ‘paint’ and
nauchit’ ‘teach, learn’ being analyzed as an perfective aspectual partners of the unprefixed
simplex predicates risovat’ ‘paint’ and uchit’ ‘teach, learn’ do not derive secondary
imperfectives through this process.16 However, many complex predicates that do not exhibit very
significant lexical difference from the verbal root derive secondary imperfectives, showing that
they are, in fact, analyzed as distinct lexemes in modern Russian. An examples of this is the verb
nazvat’ ‘call’, which could possibly be analyzed--despite some slight lexical differences--as the
Natural Perfective form of the simplex root zvat’ ‘call’. The fact that nazvat’ derives the
secondary imperfective nazyvat’ clarifies its status as a Specialized Perfective.
4.2.1.4. Distribution of Type Frequencies with na-
This section presents the pattern of distribution of the complex and simplex predicate
types discussed in 4.2.1.1. with the aspectual prefix na-. Such an analysis of the pattern of
distribution of na-predicates quantifies the extent of the synchronic grammaticalization and
lexicalization of na- as a verbal prefix. The relation of the distributional pattern to ongoing
grammaticalization and lexicalization processes in predicate types will be discussed.
15 Referring again to Filip (2005), the difference is probably one of definiteness of the Patients of the respective predicates. 16 The Complex Act Perfective vyuchit’ ‘learn’, on the other hand, derives the secondary imperfective vyuchivat’ ‘learn’.
60
Fig. 4.а. Type frequencies with the prefix na-
The distributional patterns of predicates with na- reveal a fairly low degree of
grammaticalization and lexicalization of the prefix. Of the 27 most frequent na-predicates that
occur on the chart, 10 (37%) are Specialized Perfectives, which fall at both the LESS
GRAMMATICALIZED end of the grammaticalization continuum and the LESS LEXICALIZED end of
the lexicalization continuum. Four (4) of the 27 predicates (14.8%) are Natural Perfectives
exhibiting grammaticalization of na-, and 10 predicates (37%) are simplex predicates exhibiting
# of Predicates
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Type frequencies with na-‐
61
full or partial lexicalization of na-. As a whole, the predicates in this sample rarely exhibit an
advanced degree of grammaticalization of the prefix, and the prefix is more likely to undergo full
or partial lexicalization with predicates than full grammaticalization. This suggests that the
distributional pattern of na-’s overall use is skewed toward the contribution of lexical (more
often than grammatical) meaning within either a complex or a lexicalized simplex predicate.
These results are corroborated by Peskova’s (2013) findings for type frequencies for the
Czech prefix na-, which also indicate relatively low frequency of Natural Perfectives and higher
frequencies of Specialized Perfectives and Natural Perfectives. Though the semantics of
spatial/aspectual prefixes are not fully analogous cross-linguistically, further research involving
similar prefixes in other Slavic languages would provide an interesting basis for comparison with
Russian na-.
4.2.1.5. Position of Predicate Types along Grammaticalization and Lexicalization Continua
This section will briefly discuss the position of the predicate types discussed above along
the grammaticalization and lexicalization continua. Location of predicate types along these
continua will allow us to hypothesized diachronic paths of development for predicates along both
of these continua.
4.2.1.5.1. The Grammaticalization Continuum in Complex Predicates
The grammaticalization of verbal prefixes in complex predicates takes place along a
continuum from LESS GRAMMATICALIZED to MORE GRAMMATICALIZED. This means that while
general typological distinctions can be drawn between predicate types that exhibit different
levels of grammaticalization of verbal prefixes, in reality, the level of grammaticalization of a
prefix such as na- may differ from predicate to predicate.
62
Fig. 5.b. Grammaticalization Continuum in Complex Predicates
In Natural Perfectives, verbal prefixes appear to be contribute no additional lexical
information; in other words, their function has been grammaticalized and generalized. In
Specialized Perfectives and Complex Act Perfectives, on the other hand, verbal prefixes
contribute lexical information that changes the meaning of verbal root.
4.2.1.5.1. The Lexicalization Continuum in Simplex Predicates
Similarly to grammaticalization, lexicalization is an ongoing dynamic process that occurs
along a continuum. Location along the lexicalization continuum is a function of speaker
construal and frequency of use and entrenchment of the lexical item in question. Consequently
location of na-prefixed predicates may vary from one prefixed predicate to another (or even one
speaker to another).
Fig. 5.b. Grammaticalization Continuum in Simplex Predicates
In the typology used by the present study to classify prefixed predicates, New Prefixed
Perfectives fall on the LESS LEXICALIZED end of the spectrum, with Perfectives Without Verbal
Specialized Perfectives Complex Act Perfectives
Natural Perfectives
Less Grammaticalized More Grammaticalized
New Prefixed Perfectives → Perfectives Without Verbal Root → Prefixed Imperfectives
Less Lexicalized More Lexicalized
63
Root and Prefixed Imperfectives closer to the MORE LEXICALIZED end of the continuum. New
Prefixed Perfectives have more evident semantic compositionality, indicating that the verbal
prefix has incompletely fused with the root, whereas PWVRs and PIs are completely
semantically opaque, indicating that complete fusion has taken place. The language change
processes by which these more lexicalized predicate types are derived have been previously
discussed; here it is sufficient to state that full or complete lexicalization of predicates occurs due
to a combination of diachronic shift in the meaning of the predicate with a loss of speaker ability
to identify the constituent semantic components of the originally prefixed predicate.
4.2.1.6. Path of Development of Aspectual Prefixes
The grammaticalization and lexicalization continua can be simultaneously represented as
two dimensions of the same diachronic semantic developmental space. Peskova (2013) states
that lexicalization of a prefix “can take place at any stage of grammaticalization of a Prefixed
Perfective predicate in predicates of high token frequencies that yield a high degree of
entrenchment and a consequent semantic shift” (45). In the subsequent section, the path of
development of na- will be mapped onto the grammaticalization and lexicalization continua.
4.2.1.7. Mapping na- onto the Path of Development
In this section, the development of na- along the grammaticalization and lexicalization
continua will be represented using the schema put forth in Peskova (2013).
64
Fig. 4.c. Co-occurrence of Russian verbal/aspectual prefix na- with predicate types
Although it is most frequently used in Specialized Perfectives, na- has undergone full
lexicalization in several predicates and full grammaticalization in others. As is shown in Fig. 4.c,
synchronically, na- occurs with predicates in all stages of lexicalization and grammaticalization.
Specialized Perfectives
Specialized Perfectives
New Prefixed Perfectives
Perfectives Without Verbal Roots
Prefixed Imperfectives
Grammaticalization Processes
Less Grammaticalized → More Grammaticalized
Lexicalization Processes
Less Lexicalized → M
ore Lexicalized
NA-
Natural Perfectives
65
5. A radial category analysis of na-
This section, following Baydimirova (2010) and others, will propose a radial category
model to account for the polysemous semantics of na-. It will be shown that all uses/meanings of
na- are related, through either metonymy or metaphor, to a central prototype: MOVE OVER AN
OBJECT (1). An image schema for this prototype will be shown, giving a visual representation of
participant relations in events represented by prototypical na-prefixed predicates.
Following this, each node of the radial model will be briefly discussed with examples and
a discussion of possible processes of diachronic usage and cognition that have led to its
differentiated status. Image schemas for other subcategories in the physical domain, representing
slightly modified variations of the prototypical image schema, will be shown (2-3): these are
related by metonymy to the prototype. Uses of na- related to the prototype through metaphor do
not have distinct image schemas, as all of these uses involve the application of the same physical
image schemas to non-physical domains.
The model proposed in this study is not intended as the final word on the semantics of
na-; any model, by definition, can only approximate the structural complexity of the
phenomenon it is modeling, let alone a model of cognitive semantic structure. Arguments could
be made for the combination of some of the subcategories proposed here into a single
subcategory; likewise, arguments could be made for the further division of several of the
subcategories. This model takes into account definitions for na- predicates found in several
dictionaries, including the Oxford Russian Dictionary and the Russian Academic dictionary
online database, and examples of na- predicates in use from the Russian National Corpus, as well
as examples from consultation with native speakers, in establishing a semantic motivation for
each category. Janda and Lyashevskaya (2013) state,
The radial category profiling methodology used in Baydimirova (2010) and Endresen et al (2012)
66
could in principle be extended to all the prefixes, but in the case of the larger prefixes would
involve labor-intensive attention to many thousands of verbs. The meanings of the larger prefixes
(particularly po-, which is becoming a “default” perfectivizer in Russian; cf. Dickey 2006 and
2007), are also more semantically diffuse and more challenging for a radial category profiling
analysis….Note, however, that some studies have explored radial categories also for the larger
prefixes (LeBlanc 2010 on po-; Janda 1986, Shull 2003, Zaliznjak 2006, and Braginsky 2008 on
za-).
(10)
The model proposed in the present study resolves this issue by taking a slightly different
approach from Baydimirova (2010) and Endresen et al (2012) to the classification of predicates
in which na- has a lexical meaning. The present study establishes three subcategories of
predicates within the physical domain, with distinct image schemas, in which na- has a lexical
meaning. I then propose three subcategories of predicates that metaphorically instantiate each
one of these three image schemas; each one of these subcategories contains predicates in non-
physical domains in which na- contributes lexical meaning. Unlike the studies previously
mentioned, the present study does not attempt to differentiate lexical meanings of na- within
these subcategories; theoretically, there is an infinitude of events that can be (metaphorically)
construed as the Path component of a complex motion event and an infinitude of types of
individuals or entities that have the potential to be construed as Trajectors and Landmarks, each
rendering a slightly variable lexical meaning of na- for predicates in non-physical domains. This
study presents na- as contributing lexically to predicates in non-physical domains through
instantiation of one of the physical image schemas, and considers any further differences in the
meaning of na- across predicates in these subcategories attributable to the construal differences
of each individual predicate. I only further divide the subcategories to differentiate predicates in
which na- has a more grammaticalized (Resultative, Perfective) function--predicates in which,
nevertheless, a physical image schema is still instantiated.
67
In conclusion, the use of broader categories in the model proposed in this study is
intended to encompass any variation that might emerge from a study of “many thousands of
verbs”, and the further subdivision of the lexical meaning of na- with predicates in non-physical
domains is left to future research.
68
Fig. 5.a. Radial category model of the semantic network of na-
It is important to note that almost all of the predicates under discussion in this section
remain complex predicates, whether Specialized Perfectives, Complex Act Perfectives, or
Natural Perfectives, despite the fact that many predicates that apply the complex motion event
image schema metaphorically may be semantically opaque compositionally.17 In other words, all
predicates discussed here can be understood as literally or metaphorically applying one of the
image schemas for complex motion events with multiple participants outlined in nodes (1-3).
The definition of simplex predicates as predicates where the semantic contribution of the 17All simplex predicates with na- are assumed to have followed a similar lexicalization path: metaphorical application of a complex motion event image schema leading to increasing semantic opacity of the prefix and eventual reanalysis of the na-prefixed predicate as a single verbal root.
Radial Category Model for na-
1. MOVE OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
nabezhat’ ‘run over/on’ naekhat’/naezzhat’ ‘go over/on’ naplyt’ ‘float over/on’ napolzti ‘crawl over/on’ nakhlynut’ ‘gush over/on’
5. MTPH. MOVE AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A SURFACE (INTERFERE/INFRINGE)
najti/najtis’ ‘find/be found’ naboltat’ ‘gossip about smb.’ nakhodit’/(sya) ‘locate/be located’ nastroit’ ‘adjust’ nabresti ‘happen across, come upon’ nazakat’ ‘punish’ natolknut’sya ‘come across, come upon’ nazvat’ ‘call by other name’ natknut’sya ‘stumble upon’ nagovorit’ ‘talk about smb.’ naskochit’, ‘run into’
4. METAPHORICAL MOVE
OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
napravit’sya ‘direct/guide oneself’, nasolit’ ‘annoy’ naekhat’ ‘criticize, bother smb.’ naezzhat’ ‘visit (smb.) repeatedly’
3. CAUSE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT
OR SURFACE nalozhit’ ‘put/lay on/over’ nadet’ ‘wear, put on’ namazat’ ‘spread’ nabrosit’ ‘throw on’ nakinut’ ‘throw/cast on/over’ nakleit’ ‘paste on/over’
7. DO SOMETHING A LOT; TO EXHAUSTION (COMPLETIVE)
(PERFECTIVE) nagovorit’sya ‘say enough’ nakupat’sya ‘bathe enough’ naest’sya ‘eat enough’ napit’sya ‘drink enough’ nadyshat’sya ‘breathe enough’ napisat’ ‘write’ (Pf.) narisovat’ ‘draw’ (Pf.)
6. DO SOMETHING UNTIL REACHING CHANGE OF STATE (RESULTATIVE)
napolnit’ ‘fill up’ nalit’ ‘pour, top off’ nasytit’ ‘sate, saturate’ namylit’ ‘cover with soap namaslit’ ‘cover with oil/butter’
8. METAPHORICAL CAUSE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH AN
OBJECT OR SURFACE; CAUSATIVE
nabrat’ ‘gain, gather’ naskuchit’ ‘bore’ napomnit’ ‘remind’
2. MOVE AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A SURFACE
nabrat’ ‘dial a number’ nazhat’ ‘push/press down’ nachistit’ ‘polish’ nadushit’ ‘perfume’ (v.) natolknut’sya ‘bump into’ nastupit’ ‘step on’
69
individual morphosyntactic components is no longer predictable seems to preclude the inclusion
of simplex (i.e., completely lexicalized) predicates in the discussion of this model. Such
predicates have undergone lexicalization, semantic incorporation of the prefix with the verbal
root and re-analysis as a single verbal root, and as a result no longer instantiate the image
schemas for complex motion events presented in this discussion. As a result, a radial category
model cannot fully account for the use of na- in such lexicalized predicates.
Nevertheless, the present study supposes that all na-prefixed predicates instantiated one
of the complex motion event schemas outlined here at the beginning of their diachronic
development, whether literally or metaphorically18, and continue to instantiate them as they
undergo the lexicalization process. Because lexicalization occurs along a continuum, there are
many cases of partially lexicalized predicates, such as NPPs, where the semantic
compositionality of the predicates is not fully opaque and it is still possible to discern how
elements of the image schemas have been mapped onto the participant structure of the event
described by the predicate. As a determination of the exact point at which such partially
lexicalized predicates cease to cognitively instantiate a complex event image schema is beyond
the scope of this study, the model allows for the inclusion of some of these predicates, of which
several, most prominently najti ‘find’, will be discussed in this chapter.
The radial category model for na- proposed in this study has 8 distinct nodes. Each node
describes a specific, semantically distinct function/meaning of the prefix na- as it occurs with a
specific group of predicates. The organization of the nodes within this model will now be
discussed.
As stated above, (1) is the prototype, and its image schema is the core image schema. Of
18 This study argues that even for predicates in which na-’s function is completely grammaticalized as a marker of Perfective aspect (Subcategory 7 in the model), the complex motion event image schema for (2) is instantiated.
70
the remaining nodes, (2-3) have distinct image schemas. The image schema for (2) profiles a
distinct subsection of the Path component of the core image schema; therefore (2) is directly
connected to (1). The image schema for (3) profiles the exact same part of the core image
schema as (2); however, the image schema for (3) adds another participant to the event, an Agent
acting on the Trajector.
Subcategories (1-3), discussed in 5.1., all contain predicates describing action in the
physical domain and are related to one another via metonymical image schema transformations.
All other subcategories contain predicates describing action in non-physical domains; predicates
in these categories metaphorically apply the same image schemas in (1-3) to these other
domains; in other words, they construe events and event participants in other domains as
complex motion events and participants.
The links between nodes in the model correspond to metonymic or metaphorical links
between the senses of na-. Subcategories (4) and (5) both include predicates that metaphorically
apply the image schemas for (1) and (2) in idiosyncratic ways, and are closely related to one
another; the relationship between these two categories is perhaps better captured by the idea of a
continuum. The major difference between the two categories is in the duration of the event
described, which, in the case of many of the predicates in these subcategories is variable. With
this in mind, it can be stated that predicates such as nagovorit’, naboltat’, and nakazat’ fall, at
different times, into either subcategory.
Subcategories (2) and (5-7) are related to one another through their use of a common
image schema. Subcategory (2) contains predicates that apply this image schema literally, i.e. to
physical events, while Subcategory (5) contains predicates that apply it metaphorically.
Subcategories (6-7) are distinct from Subcategory (5) in that the application of the image schema
71
overtly creates a Result or Perfective construal or implicature for na-; in Subcategory (5), the
application of the image schema is far less regular than in (6-7).
As a result, the senses (functions) of na- put forth in this model can themselves be
divided into 4 general categories:
• a marker encoding spatial location of an event (Specialized Perfective) (1,2,3)
bezhat’ ‘run’ " nabezhat’ ‘run on’
• a marker encoding perfectivity + additional lexical information, changing the
meaning of the verbal root (Specialized Perfective) (1-8)
ponmit’ ‘remember(Imp.)’ " napomnit’ ‘remind(Pf.)’
• a marker encoding perfectivity + additional temporal/aspectual information such
as Completive or Resultative (Complex Act Perfective) (6,7)
lit’ ‘pour(Imp.)’ " nalit’ ‘fill(Pf.)
• a fully grammaticalized marker of Perfective aspect (Natural Perfective) (7)
pisat’ ‘write(Imp.)’ " napisat’ ‘write(Pf.)’
In addition to these senses of na-, all of which involve predicates in which the semantic
contribution of na- is fully or partly semantically transparent, there are instances of fully
lexicalized na- predicates where the contribution of na- to the verb stem is fully opaque:
• a semantically opaque prefix to a fully lexicalized predicate
chat’* " nachat’ ‘begin(Pf.)’
Finally, there are some na- predicates that themselves are polysemous and occur in more
than one subcategory. Many verbs, such as naekhat’ ‘go on/criticize/bother smb.’ and nastupit’
‘step on/attack/infringe’ can occur both with a literal meaning in the physical domain as well as
with a metaphorical meaning in non-physical domains. Verbs of ‘finding’ and ‘location’,
72
discussed in (5), can refer to events both in physical and non-physical domains as well, although
the difference may not be immediately apparent. It may be more helpful to think of a continuum
of ‘finding’ and ‘location’ events. Events involving physical contact between a Trajector and a
Landmark, such as finding a pen or a ball, are at the ‘physical’ end of the continuum, events
involving physical movement but not contact, such as finding a building, in the middle, and
events involving no physical movement or contact, such as finding a solution to a problem are at
the ‘metaphorical’ end. For the purposes of this study, I group these predicates in Subcategory 5,
while acknowledging that they can at times fall under Subcategory 2.
Several other na- predicates are polysemous and possess distinct metaphorical meanings.
To give a few examples, nastroit’, which can occur in (5) with a meaning of ‘adjust’ and in (7)
with a meaning of ‘build enough/build many (smth.)’, nagovorit’, which can occur in (5) with a
meaning of ‘gossip, say outrageous things’ and in (7) (as nagovorit’sya) with a meaning of ‘talk
enough’, and naboltat’, which can occur in (5) and (7) with meanings of ‘gossip about smb.’ and
‘chat enough’, respectively. Two factors that seem to trigger polysemy in na- predicates are the
presence of the reflexive clitic –sya (which will be briefly discussed in the discussion on
Subcategory (7)) and Genitive/Partitive case-marking on nominal arguments. Ivanova (personal
correspondence) notes that the meaning of ponajti, for example, varies depending on the case
taken by the nominal arguments: in a sentence such as Mnogo tam naroda sjuda ponashlo ‘A lot
of people gathered there’, with the subject naroda in Genitive/Partitive case, ponajti has a
meaning of ‘gather’, while in the sentence Naproverjali, narushenij ponashli ‘they checked a lot
and found a lot of violations’, ponajti seems to be a perfective form of najti with a meaning of
‘find’. While undoubtedly interesting and relevant to the aspectual behavior of na-, a full
description of the effects of –sya and case marking on the semantics of na- predicates is beyond
73
the scope of this study.
This model includes not only the 40 most frequent na- predicates in the Russian National
Corpus (shown in Appendix A), but also other predicates found in the Russian Academic
Dictionary. It therefore is proposed to account for all na- predicates. As discussed above, the
least frequent na- predicates are likely to be Specialized and Complex Act Perfectives, including
“occasionalisms” and “marginal verbs”, which would likely be classified under Subcategories
(5), (6), or (8), although there could also be low token frequency motion verbs under
Subcategories (1-3). Again, further subdivision of the categories that include predicates where
the semantic contribution of na- is less grammaticalized (and less semantically transparent), such
as (4), (5), and (8), is left to future research.
5.1. na- used in complex motion events
This section will discuss nodes (1-3) of the radial category model for na-. Predicates in
these subcategories describe action in the physical domain; in other words, movement through
space. Here, the function of na- when it is used with predicates describing movement through
space will be shown to be very similar to its function as a preposition (equivalent to English ‘on’
or ‘over’); this indicates that the contribution of na- to predicates in (1-3) is semantically
transparent. As a result, the resulting predicates formed from na- + MOTION VERB are
semantically compositional (less lexicalized). Additionally, because na- retains its spatial
meaning in these cases, its function in (1-3) can be described as less grammaticalized.
5.1.1. Subcategory 1: MOVE OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
With several motion verbs, na- simply indicates that the motion or movement described
by the verb is taking place on top of a surface. Below is the image schema for this type of event.
This image schema represents the prototypical event structure for complex events with predicates
74
that take na-; in other words, every other semantic usage of na- represented in the radial category
model makes reference, in whole, or in part, to this schema. I have used Baydimirova’s (2010)
labeling terminology for image schemas: ‘TR’, ‘Trajector’, corresponds to Talmy’s (2003a) and
Croft’s et al. (2010) Figure, and ‘Landmark’ constitutes a necessary part of the ‘Ground’ that is
nevertheless distinct from the ‘Ground’ as a whole (the white circle), to allow for the distinction
between ordinary motion or movement and motion or movement ‘on’ something (i.e., the
Landmark).
Fig. 5.b. Image Schema for Subcategory 1 MOVE OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
This image schema visually represents a complex motion event with two participants--a
Trajector and a Landmark (labeled)--and a Path along with the Trajector moves (red arrow). The
Path, in Russian, is expressed by a verbal predicate. Other information about the Path (the
framing component), such as, in the case of Fig. 5.b, its position spatially above the Landmark, is
expressed by a prefix to the predicate, such as na-, and possibly an additional preposition.
This core schema for complex motion events with na-, which is also the prototypical
image schema for complex events in all domains involving na-, is instantiated and activated by
TR
Landmark
75
the prefixation of na- to several verbs of motion.
The verb ekhat’ is a basic (determinate) verb of motion referring to movement by vehicle.
Below is an example of ekhat’ in its unprefixed form:
6. Сади́лись в по́езд и е́хали науга́д― sadi-li-s’ v poezd i ekhali naugad sit-PlP-Rfl on train and go-PlP random They got on the train and went at random--
в Шувалово, Репино, Сестрорецк… v Shuvalovo Repino Sestroretsk to Shuvalovo Repino Sestroretsk to Shuvalovo, Repino, Sestroretsk…
(From Fazan, 1984) This verb root can be prefixed by na-, resulting in a verb that has both literal and metaphorical
interpretations. Literally, the verb is used to indicate physical motion on or over an object:
7. Взя́ли штраф, а води́тель, когда́ отъезжа́л, vzya-li shtraf a voditel’ kogda ot’ezzha-l take-PlP fine and driver when drive away-SMP They took the ticket, and the driver, as he was driving away,
одни́м колесо́м ему́ на́ ногу нае́хал! odn-im koles-om emu na nogu na-ekha-l one-Ins wheel-Ins him(D) on leg-Acc on-go-SMP ran over his foot with one of the wheels!
(From Avtopilot, 2002.01.15) In this example, the Landmark is the man’s leg, the Trajector is the wheel of the car
driven by the driver, the verbal root encodes the Path (‘went by vehicle’) and the prefix na-
encodes the framing component/additional spatial information ‘over’. It is important to note that
the framing component is also encoded by the independent preposition na-, which occurs before
nogu ‘leg’. This is an example of the double-framing strategy employed by Russian and other
Slavic languages.
In addition to ekhat’, na- can be prefixed to three other principal verbs of motion, idti ‘go
(determinate)’, khodit ‘go (indeterminate)’, and ezdit’ ‘go by vehicle (indeterminate)’, the first
76
two of which yield slightly different meanings when prefixed with na-, to be discussed below.
When na- is prefixed to ezdit’, another verb referring to motion by vehicle, the result is a
meaning similar to that of naekhat’:
8. Впереди ровный путь, чуть дальше наезженная vperedi rovn-yj put’ chut’ dal’she na-ezzh-enn-aya ahead level-Adj way bit further on-go-Pst.Pt-F Ahead lay a smooth road, a bit further, gone over
машинами пыльная развилка, а там и― воинская часть. mashin-ami pyl’n-aya razvilka a tam i voinsk-aya chast’
car-Ins/Pl dusty-F crossroads Conj there and military-F unit by many cars, a dusty crossroads, and there--a military unit.
(From Vladimir Makanin, Kavkazskij plennyj, 1995)
In the example above, the framing component na- adds a sense of spatial location ‘on’ or
‘above’ to ezzhenaya, the Past Participle of ezdit’, which encodes the Path, allowing for the
Landmark, the crossroads, to be described as ‘gone over’ by many cars (the Trajectors). Other
verbs that can be included in this subcategory include nabezhat’ ‘run on’, naplyt’ ‘float on’,
napolzti ‘crawl on’, and nakhlynut’ ‘gush on’.
5.1.2. Subcategory 2: MOVE AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A SURFACE
Subcategory 2 is related to Subcategory 1 via metonymic modification of the core image
schema found in (1). Specifically, the image schema for (2) profiles a subsection of the Path
found in the core image schema. Instead of moving across or along a surface--the Landmark--as
in Subcategory 1, the Trajector moves in a downward direction and makes contact with the top
of the Landmark. I will now explain further how the Path in (2) constitutes a subsection of the
core image schema Path.
Baydimirova (2010) claims that all meanings of o-/ob-/obo- are related, via either
metonymy or metaphor, to the ‘core image schema’ of the central prototype. This study makes
the same claim; therefore, it must be shown that all peripheral image schemas metonymically
77
profile one part or feature of the Path component of the core image schema.
The present study hypothesizes that the image schema for this subcategory highlights a
single unitary element of the Path component of the core image schema; the Path component of
the core image schema is construed as consisting of repeated incremental, sequential movements
down and forward. This construal is supported by Croft and Cruse’s (2004) statement that,
“image schemas are ‘abstract’ in one sense of the word--they are schematic--but not abstract in
another sense of that word--they are embodied” (44). In other words, the core image schema
found in Subcategory 1 is a schematic version of the embodied experience of moving forward,
which abstracts away from the many incremental movements in the human embodied experience
(human footsteps) to construe the movement as a singularity, whereas the current image schema
(2) represents these incremental movements, profiling a single one of them.
This difference can be seen as an example of a change in the ‘scope of attention’, defined
by Chafe (1994) as “a periphery of consciousness where entities are accessible to attention” (29).
Croft and Cruse (2004) describe the scope of attention as surrounding the focus of attention; for
predicates within this subcategory, the scope of attention is smaller (small circle in Fig. 5.c.), as a
section of the core image schema is “zoomed in” on, leaving the rest of the core image schema
outside of the ‘periphery of consciousness’ (Fig. 5.d.). This allows for a scalar adjustment to a
more fine-grained perspective, the separate movements that compose the Path component to
become apparent, and a single such movement to be profiled (small circle in Fig. 5.d.).
78
Fig. 5.c. Portion of core image schema selected as scope of attention for Subcategory 2
Fig. 5.d. Image schema for Subcategory 2 MOVE AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A
SURFACE, including scope of attention and focus of attention
As is the case with the other complex motion events involving na- that have been
analyzed so far, verbs in this subcategory are semantically compositionally transparent. For
example, the verb stupit’ ‘step’ becomes nastupit’ ‘step on’ when the preposition na- ‘on’ is
added as a prefix. There is no additional change in meaning in 9; nastupit’ transparently
combines the meaning of the two morphemes that make it up (independent na + independent
stupit’ = nastupit’):
9. Так испугался, что его словно бы парализовало, Tak ispuga-l-sya chto ego slovno by paralizova-lo So be scared-SMP-Rfl that him as if Cond paralyze-SNP He was so frightened, that it seemed as if he were paralyzed,
он не мог ступить шага к чёрной пропасти on nye mog stupit’ shag-a k chyorn-oy propasti he Neg could step(Inf) step-G toward black-D abyss-D he could not take a step toward the black abyss…
(From Vasil’ Bykov, Boloto, 2001)
TR
Landmark T
Lan
79
10. Не удержа́вшись, я наступи́л на о́ттиск сапога́. Ne uderzha-vshi-s’ ya na-stupi-l na ottisk sapog-a. Not hold back-PstPt-Rfl I on-step-SMP on print boot-G
Without holding myself back, I stepped on the print of the boot. (From Jurij Koval’, Sirotskaya zima, 1993)
In 10, the Trajector is the speaker’s leg or foot, the Landmark is the boot print, and the
Path via which the former makes contact with the latter is described by the verbal root stupil.
Additional information about the Path (the framing component) is provided by the prefix na- and
the preposition na, both of which make reference to the position and downward direction of the
Path within the image schema above.
Other examples of na- predicates that instantiate this image schema include
nabrat’ (when used in the sense of ‘dial a number’), nazhat’ (when used in the sense of
‘push/press down’), and nachistit’ ‘polish’. Compositionally, these predicates consist of na- +
brat’ ‘get/take’, na- + zhat’ ‘cut/reap/mow’ and na- + chistit’ ‘clean’. All of these verbal roots
can express a specific type of movement (Path) in the physical domain that, when they are
prefixed with na- as the framing component, gains an additional sense of proceeding
directionally downward against a surface, as in nabrat’ nomer ‘dial a number’ and nazhat’
pedal’ ‘press down on the pedal’.
The predicates above profile both the directional movement of the Trajector toward the
Landmark, as well as the contact of the Trajector with the Landmark. For several other
predicates within (2), however, the eventual contact of the Trajector with the Landmark/Surface
is profiled (the small circle in Fig. 5.e.) while the directional movement of the Trajector is not as
strongly emphasized.
Making the point of contact the focus of attention involves further constraining the scope
of attention; specifically, the area that is the focus of attention for the previous image schema
(the small circle in Fig. 5.e.) becomes the entire scope of attention for the current image schema
80
(Fig. 5.f.). The very limited scope of attention and very close viewpoint from which the Trajector
is observed make for a loss of spatial perspective of the core image schema as a whole
(represented by the change of observer perspective in Fig. 5.f.); because most of the Landmark
and all of the Ground are outside the scope of attention, the position of the Path and Trajector
with respect to them is no longer cognitively ‘accessible’ or salient and the Landmark appears
simply as a surface or barrier located nearby in space, with which the Path (the red vector in Fig.
5.f.) makes contact. The result of this loss of perspective is that the directionality of the Path
component becomes less salient; it is not obligatory that the movement referred to be simply
downward. Rather, the movement can be in any direction, as long as the Path eventually makes
contact with a surface.
Fig. 5.e. Portion of core image schema selected as scope of attention for Subcategory 2
Fig. 5.f. Image schema with constrained focus of attention for Subcategory 2 MOVE
AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A SURFACE, including scope of attention and focus
of attention
A result of making the point of contact of the Trajector with the Landmark the focus of
attention is that, when the image schema is applied metaphorically to complex events outside the
physical domain, the Landmark can be construed as a non-spatial Goal of the action depicted by
a predicate. Consequently, this image schema is most frequently and productively applied
T
Lan
T Lan
81
metaphorically to non-physical domains (5-8) including as a schema for Resultative and
Perfective constructions, which will be discussed below. Other predicates with this image
schema include nadushit’ ‘perfume’, napudrit’ ‘powder’, naskochit’, ‘bump/crash into’ from
skochit’ ‘jump, fall’, and, in its literal meaning, natolknut’sya ‘knock/bump against, walk into’
from tolknut’sya ‘hit, knock’.
5.1.4. Subcategory 3: CAUSE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
This subcategory utilizes what is, essentially, the image schema of (2)--in (3), the
position of the Trajector, Path and Landmark relative to one another is identical to their position
in (2), and the focus of attention/profiled section of the Path is the point of contact with the
Landmark, as in (2). However, in this subcategory, a slight change to the image schema is
involved--namely, the addition of an Agent.
Here, the Trajector is not construed as moving by itself; rather, another event participant,
the Agent, acts upon it and causes it to move along the specified path (Fig. 5.g.). In this way, the
image schema for (3) differs from those for (1) and (2), which do not incorporate Agents. Again,
the moment of contact of the Path with the Landmark/Surface occurring at the end of the
movement is profiled.
82
Fig. 5.g. Image schema for Subcategory 3 CAUSE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH AN
OBJECT OR SURFACE, including scope of attention and focus of attention
An example of a predicate that applies the above image schema in the physical domain
(in some of its uses) is nanesti, as when it is used to mean ‘land/strike a blow’:
11. Хубара была уже обессиленная, но все khybara byl-a uzhe obessilenn-aya no vsyo houbara be-SFP already exhausted-F but all The houbara was already exhausted,
еще пыталась нанести удар. eschyo pyta-las’ na-nesti udar still attempt-SFP on-bring blow still it continued trying to strike.
(From Aleksandr Ilichevskij, Pers, 2009)
In the above example, the verbal root nesti ‘bring’ is construed as the Path component of
a complex motion event. The houbara (a type of bird) is construed as the Agent, and udar ‘blow’
is construed as the Trajector. The framing component na- profiles the contact of the blow with an
TR
Landmark
Agent
83
individual, construed as a Landmark, creating a meaning of ‘land a blow, strike’ for the complex
predicate nanesti.
Some other examples of predicates that apply this image schema in the physical domain
are nalozhit’ ‘put/lay on (e.g., one’s hands, stitches on a wound)’ from lozhit’ ‘lay’, nadet’ ‘wear,
put on’ from det’ ‘do, put’, nabrosit’ ‘throw on’ from brosit’ ‘throw’, nabrosat’ ‘draft (v.),
sketch out, jot down’ from brosat’ ‘throw’, nakinut’ ‘throw/cast on’, from kinut’ ‘throw, cast’,
and nakleit’ ‘paste on’ from kleit’ ‘glue, paste’. It is possible that the simplex PWVR nanyat’
‘hire’19 also instantiated this image schema before undergoing lexicalization and reanalysis.
5.2. na- in non-spatial complex events
We will now turn to a discussion of subcategories (4-9). Predicates in these subcategories
apply the image schemas for complex motion events seen in (1-3) to non-physical domains.
While na-, as a spatial/aspectual prefix, encodes the framing component of a complex motion
event, its function is necessarily different in non-spatial complex events.
The inexact overlap between the image schema and the nature of the event and
participants being described leads to a less clear semantic role for na- in these cases. Rather than
simply the main component of a complex motion event in space, Path in these cases is
metaphorically construed as a wide array of distinct processes, using a wide array of non-spatial
verbal roots/predicates. As the morpheme that provides additional information about the Path,
na- in turn, naturally attains a wider array of semantic functions; because na- cannot simply
encode the framing component information for the Path such as ‘movement downward’ or
‘contact with a surface’ in such events, it ends up encoding a wide array of non-spatial concepts,
including completion, causation, interference, and others.
19 From na- + (fossilized verbal root) -nyat’
84
The metaphorical semantic broadening of na- in these various ways also means that its
semantic contribution to predicates in these subcategories is more semantically opaque. The
semantic relation of many of the complex predicates discussed in (4-9) to the predicates in the
physical domain discussed in (1-3) is not always apparent; nevertheless, as stated above, this
study argues that all predicates under discussion are complex predicate types that instantiate one
of the image schemas in (1-3), whether Specialized Perfectives, Complex Act Perfectives, or
Natural Perfectives.
In terms of grammaticalization, when na- is used in a wide range of semantic domains
and with a wide array of predicates, its link with its original spatial meaning grows increasingly
tenuous as it comes to be used to encode the range of non-spatial concepts listed above. At the
extreme end of this grammaticalization process na- apparently ceases to be a derivational
morpheme that creates a new lexeme when prefixed to a verbal root, and instead appears to be a
simple inflectional marker for the grammatical aspectual category of Perfective; in these cases,
adding it as a prefix does not change the meaning of the verbal root.
This section will begin by examining direct metaphorical extensions of the core image
schema (4), followed by the metaphorical extensions of each subsequently more peripheral
image schema (relative to the core image schema). Because the image schema for (2) is more
centrally located in the network than that of (3), all distinct metaphorical extensions of (2) will
be discussed in (5-8) before metaphorical extensions of (3), which will be discussed in (9).
For examples given in this section, I will continue to gloss each na- predicate
compositionally, as in section 5.1. The lexicalized/conventionalized meaning will be given in the
English translation.
85
5.2.1. Subcategory 4: METAPHORICAL MOVE OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE
This subcategory is a metaphorical extension of the prototypical core image schema of
Subcategory 1. The core image schema is applied to a non-physical domain, such as a complex
cognitive or interpersonal event, where one participant is construed as the Trajector moving ‘on
or over’ another participant, construed as a Landmark, although in reality no physical movement
is occurring. The literal, physical meaning of naekhat’ illustrated in the examples for
Subcategory 1 is semantically broadened in this way:
12. На меня́ все нае́хали по́сле фи́льма «Брат» из-за́ na menya vse na-ekha-li posle fil’m-a “Brat” iz-za on me all on-go-PlP after film-G “Brat” because of
After the film Brat, everybody was getting on me because of the
того́, что непоня́тно, кто на са́мом де́ле togo chto neponyatno kto na sam-om del-e
Dem(G) Comp unclear who on same-Pr thing-Pr fact that it was unclear who Danila actually was--
Дани́ла ― то ли геро́й, то ли злоде́й. Danila to li geroj to li zlodej Danila Dem Int.Pt hero Dem Int.Pt villain
whether he was a hero or a villain. (From Cultura, 2002.04.01)
The usage of naekhat’ in 10 is to refer to the metaphorical act of ganging up on
somebody, rather than the literal act of running somebody over. In this case, the individual
involved in the movie Brat was discussing the treatment he received following the release of the
movie; obviously, the phrase na menya vse naekhali is not intended to describe a literal act of
running over, but rather to describe a verbal and psychological onslaught that the individual was
subjected to.
This conflict between the literal and metaphorical interpretations of naekhat’ is rendered
explicitly in 13. In 13, Irina is confused as to the nature of the threat made against her family,
precisely because naekhat’ is ambiguous; when she is told that some individuals will “naedyt”
86
her family, she does not know how to interpret this threat. In the end, we are told, rather than
understanding it metaphorically--that they will continue to harass her family--she understands it
literally. This literal meaning of naekhat’ is stated clearly as “running someone over with a car”
(zadavit’ mashinoj), which is the predictable compositional meaning of na- + ekhat’: ‘on/over’ +
‘go’, or more idiomatically in English, ‘run over’.
13. Споко́йно объясни́ли, что, е́сли Ири́на не вы́катится в spokojn-o objasni-li chto esli Irina ne vykatit-sya v
peaceful-ADV explain-PlP Comp if Irina not roll out-Rfl in They explained calmly that if Irina did not “roll out” [leave]
тече́ние трех дней, они́ нае́дут на techenie trekh dn-ej oni na-ed-ut na course three(G) day-G/Pl they on-go-3Pl on within three days, they would “go over” её семью́. Ири́на не зна́ла, что тако́е "нае́дут",
eyo sem’y-u Irina ne zna-la chto tak-oe naedut her family-Acc Irina not know-SFP what such-N “they go on” her family. Irina did not know, what this “go over” meant, and understood it и поняла́ буква́льно: зада́вят маши́ной. i ponya-la bukval’n-o zadav-yat mashin-oj and understood-SFP literal-ADV run over-3Pl car-Ins
literally: they would run over them with a car. (From Novij Mir, 2002)
Irina’s confusion stems from the fact that the verb naekhat’ is more frequently used in the
metaphorical sense of ‘harrass’, as is nastupit’ (discussed below). Of course, a similar process
applies for English; lexical items that invoke image schemas (1-3), such as ‘stepping on X’s
toes’, ‘steamrollering X’, and ‘trampling on X’ are often used to refer to a figurative type of
negative interference with X rather than to their literal spatial/physical meanings.
As with naekhat’, the literal meaning of naezzhat’ ‘go on/over something
(indeterminate)’, can be broadened when the movement is construed metaphorically. naezzhat’
87
is derived from ezdit’, the verb referring to (indefinite) motion by vehicle.20 The metaphorical
use of naezzhat’ is demonstrated in the following example:
14. Оправдывая название книги, автор сосредоточивает наше opravdyva-ya nazvanie knigi avtor sosredotochivae-t nashe justify-Ger naming book-G author focus-3S our-N Justifying the name of the book, the author focuses our
внимание на перекрестках прошлого, т. е. на vnimanie na perekrestka-kh proshl-ogo [to est’] na attention on crossroads-Loc/Pl past-G that is on attention on the “crossroads of the past”, that is, on узловых моментах, когда история могла uzlov-ykh moment-akh kogda istoriya mog-la crucial-Loc/Pl moment-Loc/Pl when history be able to-SFP those crucial moments, when history was able to сойти с наезженной колеи системоцентризма. s-ojti s naezzh-enn-oj kole-i sistemotsentrizm-a out/away-go(Inf) from on-go-Pst.Pt-G track-G systemo-centrism-G leave the beaten (lit., ‘gone on’) path of blind adherence to the status quo.
(From Otechestvennie zapiski, 2003) In this example, the Landmark is koleya, the ‘track’ that the Trajector, istoriya ‘history’
‘goes over’ repeatedly. Because the Trajector ‘history’ is an non-physical abstract concept, the
complex predicate naezzhennoj encodes metaphorical Path and framing component.21
Functioning in other forms and with other NPs, naezzhat’ often has a meaning similar to
English ‘run into’ or ‘pay someone a visit’:
20 The verb ezzhat’ ‘ride’, an extremely low-frequency verb with only 8 tokens in the Russian National Corpus, is not considered a lexical item in Standard Russian (Wade, 2000). As a prefixed verbal root, -ezzhat’ is understood as the prefixed form of ezdit’ ‘go by vehicle (indeterminate)’. In fact, the non-standard form ezzhat’ may be a back-formation: ezdit’ undergoes consonant fusion in the first person singular form to ezzhu, all other forms of ezdit’, such as priezzhat’, doezzhat’, and naezzhat’, show this consonant fusion as well. Although these verbs are derived from ezdit’, the existence of naezzhat’ and others like it may lead speakers to assume that there is an unprefixed ezzhat’. 21 The construction utilizing the participial form of naezzhat’ as a modifier, and particularly the construction seen in the previous example, naezzhenaya(CASE/NUM) + koleya(CASE/NUM) is heavily routinized and very common in the data. This can be construed as evidence not only of lexicalization of a prefix/predicate combination, but also of entire constructions involving na- predicates in some cases.
88
15. Но изба́виться от меня́ тебе́ не уда́стся, no izbavi-t’-sya ot menya tebe ne udastsya
but escape-Inf-Rfl from me(1SA) you(2SD) not manage But you will not be able to get rid of me, forget об э́том забу́дь.Бу́ду наезжа́ть. С пре́жней любо́вью. ob etom zabud’ bud-u naezzha-t’ s prezhn-ej ljubov’-ju
about this-Pr forget be(Perf)-1SG visit-Inf with previous-Inst love-Inst about that. I will come now and then, still with my former love.
(From Irina Murav’eva. Meshchanin vo dvoryanstve, 1994)
This is another example of the image schema for complex motion events shown in
Subcategory 3 being extended to a non-physical domain. Here, individual the speaker intends to
visit is construed as the the Landmark, the speaker is construed as the Trajector, the Path taken
repeatedly by the speaker during the act of visiting is encoded by the verbal root -ezzhat’, and
na- encodes the framing component of the Path, indicating that the speaker/Trajector
metaphorically makes contact with the interlocutor/Landmark during these repeated visits.
Other examples of a predicate that employs the core image schema metaphorically
include napravit’sya ‘direct/guide oneself’, from pravit’ ‘direct, rule’, and nasolit’ ‘annoy’, from
solit’ ‘salt (v.)’.
5.2.2. Subcategory 5: METAPHORICAL MOVE AGAINST/MAKE CONTACT WITH A
SURFACE (INTERFERE/INFRINGE)
We will now turn our attention to a cluster of related functions of na- (5-7) that
metaphorically employ the image schema outlined in (2).
In (5), the image schema of Subcategory 2 is applied to non-physical domains. For this
subcategory, na- follows the following pathway of semantic change:
MOTION AGAINST/CONTACT WITH A PHYSICAL SURFACE → MOTION AGAINST/CONTACT WITH A
FIGURATIVE SURFACE/BARRIER
One consequence of this semantic change that is seen in the related subcategories (6) and (7) is
89
that the Landmark in the image schema can be identified with a non-physical temporal Goal of a
predication, such as completion of the action described or the reaching of a change of state. In
subcategory (5), by contrast, the Landmark has a wider range of possible construals, which can
vary from one predicate to another.
A prototypical case of this semantic broadening of na- through metaphor is nastupit’,
which, when used to express movement in the physical domain, has a compositionally
transparent meaning as shown in 5.1.2. nastupit’ undergoes semantic broadening to a meaning
equivalent to English ‘attack’ or ‘infringement’ when used to express complex events in other
domains. Below nastupit’ is encountered in its nominalized form:
16. Подавле́ние свобо́ды, наступле́ние на права́ челове́ка и podavlenie svobod-y nastuplenie na prava chelovek-a i
suppresion freedom-G attack on rights person-G and The suppression of freedom, the attack on human rights распростране́ние шовинисти́ческих настрое́ний происхо́дит постепе́нно. rasprostranenie shovinistichesk-ikh nastroeni-j proiskhodi-t postepenn-o spread chauvinist-G/Pl attitude-G/Pl occur-3S gradual-ADV and the spread of chauvinist attitudes occurs gradually.
(From Rebecca Frumkina, Otechestvennie Zapiski, 2003) Here the explicit physical meaning of ‘stepping down (on something)’ of nastupit’ is
metaphorically broadened due to the shift of the domain in which the action occurs. In this case,
the framing component of the event, which in (2) describes the contact of the Trajector with a
physical Landmark (and, therefore, the physical infringement upon the Landmark), describes
instead infringement on the autonomy (mental boundaries) of a psychological entity, which is
construed as the Landmark. In this way, na-, which encodes the framing component, undergoes
semantic broadening and can now refer to all figurative forms of social or psychological “attack”
or interference that do not involve explicit physical motion, such as the “attack on human rights”
expressed in 6. This specific path of metaphorical semantic broadening is widespread cross-
90
linguistically--as in, for example, the English phrase, “human rights are being trampled upon”.
Another na-predicate that applies the image schema from (2) in a non-spatial domain is
nastroit’ ‘tune, adjust’, from stroit’ ‘build’:
17. Програ́ммный ко́мплекс был перерабо́тан таки́м Programmn-yj kompleks byl pererabotan tak-im Software-Adj package be(3MP) redesigned such-Ins The software package has been redesigned о́бразом, что тепе́рь его́ мо́жно настро́ить obraz-om chto teper’ ego mozhno na-stroit’ way-Ins that now it possible(Adv) adjust so that it can now be adjusted к любо́й бюдже́тной классифика́ции k lyub-oj byudzhetn-oj klassifikatsi-i to any-D budget-D classification-D to any budgetary classification.
(From Vladislav Kulakov, Ural’skij SAPFIR // «Computerworld», 2004)
In this example, the ‘budgetary classification’ is construed as the Landmark and the
software package is the Trajector. The verbal root -stroit’ encodes metaphorical Path and na-
profiles the contact of the metaphorical Trajector with the Landmark. The process of changing
the software package (Trajector) to ‘build on’ any budget classification (Landmark) is construed
as the point of contact, resulting in a meaning of ‘adjust’.
In this Subcategory, as in (2), many predicates make reference to the image schema
profiling the point of contact of Trajector and Landmark; among these are predicates formed
from verbs of motion that describe ‘finding’ and ‘location’, including najti ‘find’, from idti ‘go
(determinate)’, nakhodit’/nakhodit’sya ‘locate/be located’, from khodit’ ‘go (indeterminate)’
nabresti ‘happen across, come upon’, from bresti ‘plod, trudge’, natolknut’sya in its meaning of
91
‘come across, come upon’, and natknut’sya ‘stumble across’, from tknut’ ‘poke’.22
All of these predicates involve a construal of the physical movement described by the
verbal root as the Path in the complex motion event image schema. Unlike the motion verbs
naekhat’ and naezdit’ in (1), however, this construal does not result simply in a meaning of
‘move over an object’; rather, the other, more lexicalized meanings given above have developed.
In terms of the image schema, the meaning of najti and the other predicates given above can be
explained in this way: as a result of the contact of the Trajector with the Landmark, the location
of the Landmark can now be integrated within the spatial context of the Ground as a whole
(whereas previously its location relative to the Ground was unknown).
Below is an example of idti unprefixed (in the irregular past form shla), followed by an
example of najti, the prefixed form. These two examples illustrate the difference between the
unprefixed verb root and the na- form.
18. Я шла точно с той же ya sh-la tochno s toj zhe I go-3FP exactly with that(Ins) Emph I was walking [going on foot] at the same скоростью, что он ехал skorost’-yu chto on ehka-l speed-Inst that it go-3MP speed that [the bus] was moving…
(From Dasha, 2004)
19. Эта компания была одной из наиболее активных eta kompaniya byl-a odn-oj iz naibolee aktivn-ykh Dem(F) company be-SFPone-Ins of most active-G/Pl This company was one of the most active западных фирм… a сейчас спустя 10-12 лет zapadn-ykh firm a sejchas spustya 10-12 let
western-G/Pl firm Conj now after 10-12 years western firms...and now after 10-12 years
22 In addition, the NPP obnaruzhit’ ‘discover’, now completely semantically opaque, may have been a member of this subcategory at one time.
92
от неё не найдёшь и следов. ot neyo ne na-jdyo-sh’ i sled-ov from her(G) Neg on-go-2S and trace-G/Pl
you can’t even find a trace of it. (From Computerworld, 2004)
All ‘finding’ or ‘location’ predicates given above profile either a literal moment (in the
physical domain) or a figurative/metaphorical moment (cognitive, etc.) of a Trajector’s contact
with and resulting location/contextualization of a Landmark. In other words, the Landmark can
be an object physically located in space that is physically encountered by the Trajector (usually
an individual), or it might be an entity located in a non-spatial domain that is encountered
cognitively or in some other way, such as the ‘traces’ of the company referred to in the example
above. The predicates najti ‘find’, nakhodit’ ‘locate’, najtis’ ‘be found’, and nakhodit’sya ‘be
located’, all profile the act of finding an object both literally in space and metaphorically.23 I
have included them in this subcategory because the majority of events described by these
predicates do not involve physical contact of the Trajector with the the Landmark, but rather the
type of cognitive orientation of a Landmark within a mental landscape that is seen in 13.
To use once again terminology from Croft and Cruse (2004), predicates of ‘finding’ and
‘location’ within this subcategory have the same focus of attention as predicates in (2); namely,
the point of contact between Trajector and Landmark. However, their scope of attention is much
larger, as part of their function is to “zoom out” and show the location of the Landmark with
respect to the Ground. This widened scope of attention is the key difference between the image
schema for these predicates and those for predicates in (2). The contact of the Trajector with the
Landmark, combined with the widened scope of attention encompassing the Ground, allows the
23 najti has another literal meaning falling under subcategory 1, equivalent to English ‘pass over, block’, yet another example of the polysemy of na- and na- predicates. An example of this is a sentence such as na solntse nashla bol’shaya tucha ‘a big cloud blocked the sun’ (Ivanova, personal communication).
93
Landmark to be situated in the wider environment, i.e, relative to the Ground and other
surrounding objects; in other words, the Landmark is ‘found’.24
Another predicate within this subcategory is nagovorit’ ‘gossip, say unbelievable/crazy
things’. The following discussion will illustrate na-’s semantically distinct contribution to two
almost identical verbs of speaking, govorit’ and govorit’sya, thereby further demonstrating its
polysemy as a verbal prefix. These two verbs are both semantically equivalent to English
‘speak’; as the following example illustrates, govorit’sya is govorit’ with the Russian suffix -sya,
which in this case functions as an intransitive marker.
20. Вы сами же говорили / что боитесь. vy sami zhe govorili chto boites’ you(F) Ints.Pr Emph say-3PlP Comp fear-3Pl-Rfl You yourself said that you are afraid.
(From Obshchestvennoe mnenie, 2003) И тогда всё как говорится будет хорошо. i togda vsyo kak govor-it-sya bud-et khorosh-o and then all(N) as say-3S-Imp be(Perf)-3S good-N And then all, as they say, will be well. (lit. ‘all, as it is said, will be well.’)
(From www.khutorskoy.ru/discus/audio/index.htm, 2008) Though both nagovorit’ and nagovorit’sya employ the image schema of (2)
metaphorically, they have distinct semantic meanings, which are attributable to their different
construals of Trajector, Path, and Landmark. nagovorit’, which falls under the present
subcategory, will be discussed first.
In the case of nagovorit’, the act of speaking is construed as the Path, the individual who
is speaking is construed as the Trajector, and another individual is construed as the Landmark.
na-, as the framing component for this metaphorical Path, profiles the point of contact of the
24 This is an instance of a common metaphorical semantic path equating physical location ‘on’ or ‘above’ something with ‘finding’, which is found in English ‘come upon’ and Spanish ‘encontrar’, to give two examples.The Spanish verb encontrar, meaning ‘to find’, arises etymologically from Latin in+contra+re ‘on+against+Inf.’ Its literal compositional meaning, therefore, can be understood as a verbalized form of the spatial preposition ‘up against’, as in ‘be/come up against’.
94
Trajector (the speaker) with the Landmark (the other individual) to indicate that the speaking is
occurring ‘on’ or ‘against’ someone, and that the speaker’s impact on the other individual
through the act of speaking is similar to that of the Trajector on the Landmark.
This metaphorical application of the image schema gives nagovorit’ a meaning similar to
English ‘say unbelievable/crazy things’, as in both of the examples given below:
21. Он всегда такого наговорит, что уши вянут. on vsegda tak-ogo na-govori-t chto ushi vyan-ut He always such-G on-speak-3S Comp ear(Pl) wilt-3Pl He always says so many crazy things that the ears wilt.
(From V.S. Khrakovskij, Ponyatie sirkonstanta i ego status, 1999)
22. Ну что вы мне сейчас наговорили? Что, сами-то nu chto vy mne sejchas nagovorili chto sami-to Intj Intr you(F) me(1SD) now on-speak-3PlP Intr Ints.Pr-Indf.Pt What [nonsense] were you saying me just now? Do you вы в это верите? Нет ведь? vy v eto verite net ved’ you(F) in Dem believe-3Pl Neg Intr yourself believe this? No, right?
(From Y. O. Dombrovskij, Fakul’tet nenuzhnykh veshchej, Pt. 3, 1978)
Here, nagovorit’ utilizes the image schema from (2), making for a sense of infringement
on an individual. A phrase such as mne sejchas nagovorili above can be understood
compositionally as ‘you were just talking on me’, with a metaphorical meaning to be understood
as ‘you were gossiping, saying unbelievable/crazy things to me’. A similar semantic process of
construing an individual as a Landmark in space is found in some dialects of English which
allow ‘talk on’, with a meaning akin to Standard English ‘discuss’.
Another possible example of na- expressing motion against a figurative barrier is the
predicate nazakat’ ‘punish’. Compositionally, this predicate consists of na- + kazat’ ‘show’. The
two examples given below contrast the meaning of kazat’ with the prefixed form nakazat’:
95
23. Из Рима я никогда не уезжал, дальше iz rim-a ya nikogda ne u-ezha-l dal’she from Rome-G I never Neg Abl-go-SMP further I have never left Rome, beyond
околицы носа не казал. okolits-y nos-a ne kaza-l outskirts-G nose-G Neg show-SMP the outskirts I have never shown my face.
24. Я спрашивал у прокурора Тверского района,
Ya sprashiva-l u prokuror-a tversk-ogo rajon-a I ask-SMP of prosecutor-G Tver(Adj)-G region-G I asked the prosecutor of the Tver region
за что же ребят наказали так жестоко? za chto zhe pebyat nakazali tak zhestoko for what Emph guy-Acc/Pl punish-PlP so severe-Adv why the fellows were punished so severely.
The function of na- within nakazat’ is semantically opaque. However, it can be argued
that nakazat’ involves a construal of the act of ‘showing’ as a Path and of an individual as a
Landmark. In this interpretation, na-, as the framing component of the metaphorical Path,
expresses the fact that the individual who carries out the act of ‘showing’, construed as the
Trajector, interferes with or infringes upon the autonomy of the individual construed as the
Landmark, rendering a meaning of ‘punishment’ for nakazat’. As nazakat’ appears to have
undergone partial, if not full, lexicalization, however, its inclusion in this subcategory is not
definitive.
Another interesting case within this subcategory is nazvat’, from zvat’ ‘call. nazvat’
indicates that an individual or entity, construed as a Landmark, is being called or referred to by a
secondary, peripheral aspect of its identity. Here is an example with the unprefixed verb zvat’:
25. Соня (Елена Калинина) ― старше; здесь её Sonya (Elena Kalinina) star-she zdes’ eyo Sonya (Elena Kalinina) old-Com here her Sonya ([played by] Elena Kalinina) is older; here it
96
следовало бы звать по имени-отчеству. sledovalo by zvat’ po imen-i-otchestv-u follow-SNP Cond call(Inf) by name-D-patronymic-D would naturally follow to call her by name and patronymic.
(Ekran i stsena, 2004.05.06)
In this example, zvat’ indicates that the individual is being called by her name. The verb
nazvat’, on the other hand, is used in cases where an individual or entity is being called not by
their name, but by another name or title:
26. Если вы хотите счастия вашей дочери, то esli vy khoti-te schastiya vash-ej docher-i to If you(Pl) want-2Pl happiness your(Pl)-G daughter-G then If you wish for your daughter’s happiness,
назовите Милона вашим сыном. na-zov-ite Milon-a vash-im syn-om on-call-PlCom Milon-G your(Pl)-Ins son-Ins name Milon as your son.
(From N. P. Milonov, Istoriya bednoj Mar’i, 1805) 27. Легковерная не почитала его способным ко гнусной
legkovern-aya ne pochita-la ego sposobn-ym ko gnysn-oj gullible-F Neg consider-SFP him capable-Ins toward vile-D The gullible girl did not think him capable of such vile измене и и терпеливо дожидалась дня, в который izmen-e i terpeliv-o dozhida-la-s’ dnya v kotor-yj treachery-D and patient-Adv await-SFP-Rfl day(G) in/on Rel.Pr-M betrayal, and patiently awaited the day, on which он обещал назвать ее супругою. on obeshcha-l na-zvat’ eyo suprug-oyu
he promise-SMP on-call(Inf) her spouse-Ins he promised to call her ‘wife’.
(From N. Mamyshev, Zloschastnyj, 1807) 28. Любовь, которую назовет мир беззаконною страстию! lyubov’ kotor-uyu na-zove-t mir bezzakonn-oyu strast-iyu
love Rel.Pr-Acc on-call-3S world lawless-Ins passion-Ins Love, which the world calls a lawless passion!
(From Plamed i Linna, 1807)
In the above examples, the image schema for Subcategory 2 is again applied metaphorically.
The act of calling is construed as the Path of a complex motion event, with the individual
97
undertaking the act of calling construed as the Trajector, the individual or entity being referred to
construed as the Landmark, and the Path or framing component encoded by na- profiles the
metaphorical contact of the Trajector with a surface. The “surface” in the case of nazvat’ is the
figurative conceptual exterior of the identity of the individual or entity being referred to. For
instances of ‘calling’ that reference an ancillary, secondary component of the referent’s identity -
- such as ‘son’ or ‘wife’ above -- the individual who is calling is understood as not describing the
identity of the individual or entity being called in its entirety, but rather a peripheral, “surface-
level” characteristic; for this reason, the calling individual (Trajector) is construed as only
making contact with the surface of the referent (the Landmark) instead of penetrating it.
In the above examples with nazvat’, the individuals or entities that are construed as
Landmarks have an identity that is not fully expressed by the term that is used to address them.
In the first example, the interlocutors are told that they must name Milon as their son (synom).
While we do not have much information about Milon, given that it is suggested that they name
him their son, it can be inferred that he isn’t yet their son and therefore vashim synom is even less
than a superficial characteristic of Milon’s identity--it is a hypothetical characteristic of his
identity.
In the second example, suprugoyu ‘wife’ is a hypothetical aspect of the identity of the
legkovernaya ‘gullible one’, who is construed as the Landmark; she is “patiently awaiting” the
moment when she can assume the identity of ‘wife’--meaning that she is not already. In the final
example, a concept, ‘love’ is construed as the Landmark, and following the first two examples it
is referred to by one of many possible superficial characteristics of its identity, namely ‘lawless
passion’.
Other examples of predicates in this subcategory are naboltat’, from na- + boltat’ ‘chat,
98
talk’, in its meaning of ‘gossip about smb.’, and nasolit’, from na- + solit’ ‘salt’, in its meaning
of ‘annoy’.
5.2.3. Subcategory 6: DO SOMETHING UNTIL REACHING CHANGE OF STATE
(RESULTATIVE)
This subcategory is similar to (5) and (7) in its metaphorical application of the image
schema from (2). It is especially similar to (7) in its construal of the action described by the
verbal root as the Path component of a complex motion event and construal of the completion of
the action as the framing component encoded by na-.
The difference between (6) and (7), however, is that in (6) the completion of the action,
which is construed as the point of contact encoded by na-, causes a change of state in the Patient,
construed as the Landmark.
One predicate in which na- is arguably used as a marker of change of state (Resultative)
is nadoest’, which is closest in meaning to English ‘be sick and tired of (smth.), be fed up with
(smth.)’. Compositionally, nadoest’ consists of na- + doest’ ‘finish eating’, which is itself a
Complex Act Perfective profiling the end of the act of eating.
29. Что сама доесть не может ― скормит собаке.
chto sam-a doest’ ne mozhe-t ckormi-t sobak-e what self-F finish eating Neg be able-3S feed-3S dog-D What one cannot eat oneself, one feeds to the dog.
(From www.eva.ru, Brak (forum), 2004)
nadoest’ is semantically opaque due to the fact that the events it describes do not occur in
the same domain (ingestion) as the events described by the unprefixed root doest’. Arguably, in
the case of nadoest’, the act of finishing eating is construed as the Path, one individual is
construed as the Landmark, and another individual or entity is construed as the Trajector.
Finally, a metaphorical domain shift from ingestion to cognition or interpersonal occurs, with
99
‘finishing eating’ likened to other kinds of extended interaction between the entities construed as
Trajector and Landmark. na-, as the framing component, indicates here that as a result of the
interaction the individual construed as the Landmark undergoes a change of state. This renders a
meaning of ‘be sick of (smth.), be fed up with (smth.):
30. Она, по словам Валеры, ему уже надоела ona po slov-am Valer-y emu uzhe na-doe-la she by word-D/Pl Valera-G him(D) already on-finish eating-SFP According to Valera, he was already sick of her.
(From «Volga», 2010) Other predicates in this subcategory include napolnit’ ‘fill up’ from polnit’ ‘fill’, nalit’
‘fill’ from lit’ ‘pour’, nasytit’ ‘sate, saturate’, from sytit’ ‘flavor, sweeten’ namylit’ ‘cover with
soap’ from mylit’ ‘lather(v.)’, and namaslit’ ‘cover with oil/butter’ from maslit’ ‘butter(v.)’.
5.2.4. Subcategory 7: DO SOMETHING A LOT; TO EXHAUSTION (COMPLETIVE)
(PERFECTIVE)
In this subcategory, the metaphorical motion against a surface of Subcategory 5 is
metaphorically re-interpreted as completion or exhaustion of an action. As in (5), predicates in
this subcategory profile and focus attention upon a very small part of the core image schema--
contact of the Trajector with the Landmark. The event described by the predicate stem is
construed as the Path of a complex motion event. The temporal endpoint or Goal of the event, at
which the performance of the action is completed or exhausted, is construed and re-interpreted as
the surface of the Landmark, with which the Trajector comes into contact . The individual or
entity undertaking the action to completion is construed as the Trajector.
An example of a predicate in this subcategory is nagovorit’sya. nagovorit’, as stated
above, has a meaning similar to English ‘gossip/talk about somebody’. The meaning of
nagovorit’sya, on the other hand, is closer to “say enough”:
100
32. Я вас ско́ро не отпущу́, до тех ya vas skoro ne otpush-y do te-kh I you(Pl) soon Neg release-1Sg until Dem-G/Pl I will not release you, I will not пор не отпущу́, пока́ не наговорю́сь. por ne otpush-y poka ne na-govor-yu-s’ time(G/Pl) Neg release-1Sg until Neg over-speak-1Sg-Rfl release you, until such time as I have finished speaking.
(From Viktor Astav’ev, Oberton, 1995-1996) 33. С жено́ю он уже́ вдо́сталь наговори́лся
s zhen-oyu on uzhe vdostal’ nagovorilsya with wife-Ins he already plenty on-speak-SMP-Rfl With his wife he had already spoken quite enough о свое́й беде́, жена́ ему́ не сочу́вствовала. o svo-ej bed-e zhena emu ne sochustvovala about 3Poss.Adj-Pr trouble-Pr wife him(D) Neg sympathize-3FSP about his misfortune; his wife did not sympathize with him.
(From Vasil’ Bykov, Bednye ljudi, 1998)
34. Мы с ним видались почти каждый божий день; my s nim vidalis’ pochti kazhdyj bozh-ij den’ we with him(Ins) see-PlP-Rcp almost every-M darn-M day We saw each other almost every darn day, не могли наглядеться друг на друга, не ne mog-li naglyadet’sya drug na drug-a ne Neg be able-PlP on-stare(Inf)-Rcp one on other-Acc Neg we could not tire of looking at one another, we could not speak to one another могли наговориться, намиловаться. mogli nagovorit’sya namilovat’sya be able-PlP on-speak(Inf)-Rcp on-embrace(Inf)-Rcp enough, could not embrace one another enough.
(From P. Y. L’vov. Dasha, derevenskaya devushka, 1803)
In all of the above examples, nagovorit’sya is used to indicate completion of the act of
speaking, to the point of eliminating the necessity to say more. In all examples, the speaker is
construed as the Trajector, the act of speaking is construed as the Path and encoded by the verb
stem govorit’, and the framing component encoded by na- profiles the end of the act of speaking,
which is construed as the point of contact of the Trajector with the Landmark. This additional
101
framing information about the (metaphorical) Path, while coded morphosyntactically by na-, is
also encoded lexically by do tex por...poka ne ‘until (such time as)’ in the first example.25 In the
second example, the framing component expressed by na- receives an additional sense of
completion through the use of vdostal’ ‘plenty’26.
In addition, the third example uses two other predicates prefixed with na-, namilovat’sya
‘embrace enough’ and naglyadet’sya ‘look upon enough’ which, similarly to nagovorit’sya,
express that the action is carried out (or, in this case, not carried out) to completion or
exhaustion.
All uses of nagovorit’sya (and other predicates in this subcategory) the data construe the
point of completion of the act of speaking (or the acts described by the other predicates) as the
point of contact of the Trajector with the Landmark. The development of this use of na-, to
indicate reaching a point of completion, has likely been accelerated through pragmatic
inferencing as a result of its co-occurrence with lexical items such as those described above.
Sometimes na- has an additional construal of exhaustion. The development of this use of na-, to
indicate reaching a point of exhaustion, has likely been similarly accelerated as a result of its co-
occurrence with lexical adverbs indicating exhaustion (and satiety) such as vdostal’ ‘plenty, quite
enough’, vslast’ ‘to one’s heart’s content’, vdovol’ ‘to a sufficient extent’, dosyta ‘to satiety’,
vvolyu ‘ad libitum’, dovol’no ‘enough’, and dostatochno ‘sufficiently’, and also with modal
auxiliary verbs such as uspet’ ‘manage, be able to’, or moch’ ‘be able to’. The use of these
various constructions with nagovorit’sya and other predicates in this category reinforces the
construal of the act of speaking as something that is being completed, often with a certain
inherent exertion and corresponding exhaustion. 25As well as contextually/pragmatically through the speaker’s description of what he or she will not allow to occur until the act is completed. 26 (compositionally, v + dostal’, ‘to’+‘enough’)
102
The fact that prefixing na- to govorit’ ‘say’ and govorit’sya ‘say (Refl.)’ yields two
semantically distinct lexemes is very strong evidence for the polysemy of na-. Like nagovorit’,
nagovorit’sya metaphorically employs the image schema from (2) and construes the act of
speaking as the Path component of a complex motion event, with na- profiling the framing
component. While in the case of nagovorit’ the framing component, encoded by na-, indicates
that metaphorical contact is made with an individual, making for a meaning of ‘gossip, talk
about’, in the case of nagovorit’sya, na- indicates that the speaker (Trajector), who in the act of
speaking is construed as proceeding directionally toward a surface (the Landmark), finally end
the act of speaking, which is metaphorically construed as reaching and making contact with the
surface, thus completing the act of speaking (and possibly exhausting the need to say any more).
The use of na- to express completion, exhaustion, or satiety of an action is one of the
most productive functions of the prefix. Path in non-physical domains has many possible
construals, allowing for a large number of predicates to be included as members in this
subcategory: for the image schema to be applied to a predicate in the same way it is applied to
nagovorit’sya and namilovat’sya, the action the predicate describes simply needs to occur over a
period of time, and have a theoretical end point that the speaker wishes to profile.
Other examples of predicates in this subcategory include nakupat’sya ‘bathe enough,
finish bathing’, naradovat’sya ‘be happy/rejoice enough’, naest’sya ‘eat enough, finish eating’,
napit’sya ‘drink enough, finish drinking’, and nadyshat’sya ‘breath enough’.
This subcategory also encompasses the most grammaticalized uses of na-, found in
Natural Perfectives such as napisat’ ‘write (Pf.)’ from pisat’ ‘write’, narisovat’ ‘draw (Pf.)’ from
risovat’ ‘draw’ and namalevat’ ‘paint, daub (Pf.)’ from malevat’ ‘paint, daub’.
103
5.2.5. Subcategory 8: METAPHORICAL CAUSE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT
OR SURFACE; CAUSATIVE
In this subcategory, the image schema of (3) is applied to non-physical domains. An
example of this is the predicate naponmit’ ‘remind’ from ponmit’ ‘remember’:
35. Это объяснение напомнило мне историю о том, как eto ob’’yasnenie napomni-lo mne istori-yu o tom kak this explanation remind-SNP me(3SD) story-Acc about Dem how
This explanation reminded me of the story of how одна моя сокурсница сдавала экзамен по русской литературе. odna mo-ya sokursnitsa sdava-la ekzamen po russk-oj literatur-e one(F) my-F classmate(F) take-SFP exam on russian-Dat literature-Dat one of my classmates had taken an exam on Russian literature.
In the above example, the act of remembering is construed as the Path component of a
complex motion event. The individual speaking is construed as the Trajector, the ‘explanation’ is
construed as the Agent, and the thing remembered by the speaker (the story) is construed as the
Landmark. na- profiles the moment of the speaker remembering the story, which is construed as
the point of contact of the Trajector with the Landmark. The explanation causes the speaker to
remember the story, giving the predicate napomnit’ a meaning of ‘remind’.
Another predicate that can be placed in this subcategory is nabrat’, from brat’ ‘bring’, in
its sense of ‘gain, gather’.
36. А на перева́л на́до набра́ть бо́льше a na pereval nado nabrat’ bol’she and to pass necessary gain(Inf) more And to reach the pass we need to gain шестисо́т ме́тров по высоте́. shestisot metr-ov po vysot-e six hundred(GPl) meter-GPl by altitude-Dat 600 meters of altitude.
(From Otchet o velosipednom pokhode, 2003) In this example, the ‘meters of altitude’, taken as an aggregate, is construed as the
104
Trajector and the 600 meter threshold is construed as the Landmark. The individual who is
ascending in altitude is construed as causing the distance in meters to aggregate until it makes
contact with the threshold of 600 meters; na- profiles this moment of contact, giving nabrat’ a
meaning of ‘gain’.
Other predicates that follow this model include nakopit’ ‘accumulate’ from kopit’ ‘save,
amass’, narastit’ ‘build up, amass’ from rastit’ ‘grow’, and naskuchit’ ‘bore (tr.)’ from skuchit’
‘bore (intr.)’.
105
6. Conclusion
This thesis has investigated the polysemous semantics of the Russian verbal prefix na-.
This prefix is one of a closed class of verbal prefixes in Russian that serve both as derivational
morphemes encoding lexical information and as grammatical markers of aspect. The analysis of
na-’s semantic profile was undertaken generally from a Cognitive Grammar and Construction
Grammar perspective, while findings from previous research on the semantics of na- were also
considered.
In particular, the study discussed how na-predicates form a part of a Russian aspectual
system which utilizes what is referred to as a ‘double-framing’ construction within Talmy’s
(2003a), and Croft’s et al. (2010) cross-linguistic typology of complex predicate constructions:
many predications with na- encode the framing component of a literal or metaphorical motion
event both verbally through a spatial prefix (na-) and by using a satellite (a spatial preposition,
also na-). The study then used Janda’s (2007b) classification of Perfective types in Russian as
well as the grammaticalization-lexicalization continuum proposed in Peskova (2013) to show the
synchronic distribution of na-, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, I took the 40
most frequently occurring verbs with the na- prefix and used the data to show the comparative
frequency of na- with various Complex and Simplex Predicate types, following Peskova (2013).
Qualitatively, following Baydimirova’s (2010) study of the semantics of the Russian spatial
aspectual prefixes ob-, o-, and obo-, and Endresen et al.’s (2012) study of the prefixes vy-, raz-,
iz-, u-, vz-/voz-, ot-, pri-, pere-, pod-, and v-, I supported the idea that prefixes can form
polysemous clusters in Russian by proposing a Radial Category analysis for the various semantic
uses of na-, following Lakoff (1988).
The study then analyzed each semantic subcategory given in the Radial Category
106
analysis, proposing a core image schema for the prototype meaning of na- and showing the
cognitive mechanism of change for each subsequent semantic use of na-. The model proposed
for na- in this study implies that na- is stored as a radial category with multiple members. Each
member is related to the prototype via metonymical or metaphorical extensions of the core
(physical) image schema, which is a visual representation of a complex motion event profiling
the contact of a Trajector with a Landmark, which I term MOVE OVER AN OBJECT OR SURFACE.
na- is therefore polysemous, with a range of both lexical and grammatical functions.
At the LESS LEXICALIZED/LESS GRAMMATICALIZED end of the spectrum, na- prompts the
literal application of one of the three image schemas to predicates in the physical domain, or the
metaphorical application of one of the image schemas to predicates in non-physical domains.
This results in a range of lexical meanings for the prefix, a result of differing participant
construals across individual predicates. In many of the semantically opaque metaphorical
applications of the core image schema, seen in Subcategories (5) and (9), the Landmark is
construed as an individual or other entity (as opposed to the more grammaticalized uses of na-
where it is construed as a temporal boundary).
At the MORE GRAMMATICALIZED end of the spectrum, na- has a more grammatical
function as a Resultative marker with Complex Act Perfectives as well as a marker of Perfective
aspect. Nevertheless, these functions of na- are still attributed to na’s application of a complex
motion event image schema to predicates, as in the case of Perfective aspect, where, as I have
argued, a temporal boundary is construed as the Landmark: for Perfective, the completion of the
event described by the predicate.
Like all verbal aspectual prefixes in Russian, na- originates as a spatial preposition.
Diachronically, na- undergoes both lexicalization and grammaticalization; as a result, it is used
107
as a prefix for a wider array of predicates with a more semantically general grammatical meaning
as well as undergoing semantic fusion with certain predicates.
This study has aimed to provide an account of the semantics and use of a single
morpheme, a small element within the aspectual system of Russian as a whole and event
predication in languages in general. Nevertheless, the function of na- provides a glimpse into
how these larger systems function and evolve, both in cognition and interaction.
108
Appendix A. Data Analysis for na- Predicates
#Token Fr.(ipm) Token Most Frequent Construal Eng Tran./Other Const. Base Pr. Base Pred. Freq. Impf. Partner/Imp Created by 1 473.3 nachat’ Perfective w/o V.R. begin none n/a nachinat’ infixation 2 424.1 najti Specialized Perfective find idti 957.1 none N/A 3 342.7 nakhodit’sya Specialized Perfective be found, be located khodit’ 296.6 none N/A 4 336.2 napisat’ Natural Perfective write (Pf.) pisat’ 444.3 napisyvat’ infixation 5 296.0 (nachinat’) 6 293.4 (nazyvat’) 7 205.1 nazvat’ Specialized Perfective call (by other name) zvat’ 131.3 nazyvat’ infixation 8 197.4 (nachat’sya) 9 137.1 (nadeyat’sya) 10 135.3 (nazyvat’sya) 11 125.0 obnaruzhit’ New Prefixed Perfective discover none n/a obnaruzhivat’ infixation 12 115.1 (nachinat’sya) 13 109.9 napravit’ Specialized Perfective guide, direct pravit’ napravlyat’ infixation 14 106.2 (napominat’) 15 95.5 nablyudat’ Prefixed Imperfective observe none n/a none none 16 89.5 nakhodit’ Specialized Perfective find, locate khodit’ 296.6 none N/A 17 79.3 naznachit’ Specialized Perfective denote znachit’ 134.4 naznachivat’ infixation 18 67.1 nastupit’ Specialized Perfective step on, infringe stupit’ nastupat’ infixation 19 65.2 napomnit’ Specialized Perfective remind pomnit’ 363.1 napominat’infixation 20 62.1 (nauchit’sya) 21 58.8 (najtis’) 22 51.2 nadet’ Specialized Perfective put on det’ nadevat’ infixation 23 44.1 nenavidet’ Prefixed Imperfective hate videt’ none N/A 24 44.0 (nastupat’) 25 43.7 nabrat’ Specialized Perfective gain, dial a number brat’ 26 43.7 prednaznachit’ New Prefixed Perfective dedicate, designate znachit’ 134.4 prednaznachat’ infixation 27 43.2 (nablyudat’sya) 28 40.9 nadoest’ Complex Act Perfective be fed up (with smb.) doest’ none N/A 29 40.0 ponadobit’sya New Prefixed Perfective require, be in need of dobit’sya none N/A 30 38.5 nanesti Specialized Perfective inflict, strike nesti nanosit’ anal. pref. 31 37.2 nastaivat’(nastoyat’) Specialized Perfective insist stoyat’ nastaivat’ infixation 32 35.9 narushit’ Perfective w/o V.R. break, violate none n/a narushat’ infixation 33 35.8 nauchit’ Natural Perfective study (Pf.) uchit’ nauchivat’ infixation 34 35.5 napechatat’ Natural Perfective print (Pf.) pechatat’ same as Simplex Simplex pred. 35 33.9 narisovat’ Natural Perfective paint (Pf.) risovat’ same as Simplex Simplex pred 36 33.7 nalit’ Complex Act Perfective fill lit’ nalivat’ infixation 37 31.4 (napravit’sya) 38 29.5 (narushat’) 39 27.9 napolnit’ Complex Act Perfective fill polnit’ napolnyat’ infixation 40 27.3 nabirat’ Prefixed Imperfective raise, muster none none N/A
109
Bibliography
Baydimirova, Anna. (2010). Russian aspectual prefixes O, OB, and OBO: a case study of allomorphy. Master’s thesis, University of Tromso. Available at http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/handle/10037/2767.
Brinton, L., & Traugott, E. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. In Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brugman, Claudia and Lakoff, George. “Cognitive Typology and Lexical Networks.” 1988.
Bybee, Joan. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: the origins of structure preservation. In J. Good (ed.), Language Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 108-121.
Bybee, J. (2014). Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure (Vol. 2, pp. 145-165). New York: Psychology Press.
Bybee, J., & Dahl, Ö. (1989). The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. SL Studies in Language, 51-103.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clausner, Timothy C. and Croft, William. (1999). Domains and image-schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10.1-31.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (1999). Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics: foundations, scope and methodology, ed. Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker, 61-93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft et al. (2010). “Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions”. Hans Christian Boas, ed. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 201-229.
Deo, Ashwini. 2012. Morphology. The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnick, 155-183. Oxford University Press
110
Dickey, S. M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Dickey, S. M. 2005. “S-/Z- and the Grammaticalization of Slavic Aspect”. Slovene Linguistic Studies 5: 3-55.
Dickey, S. M. 2006. “Aspectual pairs, goal orientation, and po- delimitatives in Russian”. Glossos 7. Available at http://www.seelrc.org/ glossos/issues/7/
Dickey, S. M. 2007. “A prototype account of the development of delimitative po- in Russian”. Dagmar Divjak and Agata Kochanska, eds. Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer, 326-71.
Dickey, S. M. 2012. "Orphan Prefixes and the Grammaticalization of Aspect in South Slavic," Jezikoslovlje 13(1): 71-105.
Endresen, Anna et al. 2012. “Russian ‘purely aspectual’ prefixes: Not so ‘empty’ after all?” Scando-Slavica 58 (2): 229-289.
Evgen’eva, A. P. (ed.) 1999. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka V 4-x tt. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Filip, H. (2005). Measures and Indefinites. Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect, 1(1), 229-288.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). "Frame semantics". In The Linguistic Society of Korea, eds. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 111-37.
Fillmore, C.J. / P. Kay / M. O’Connor (1988), Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language, 64, 3, 501–538.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herskovits, Annette. 1985. Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science 9.341-378. Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, N. 2004. “What makes grammaticalization - a look from its components and its fringes.” (with Walter Bisang & Björn Wiemer, eds.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 139-157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993.Grammaticalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
111
Janda, Laura A. 1986. A Semantic Analysis of the Russian Verbal Prefixes ZA-, PERE-, DO- and OT- (= Slavistische Beiträge, Band 192). Munich: Otto Sagner. 261 pp.
Janda, Laura A. 2007. “Aspectual Clusters of Russian Verbs”. Studies in Language 31: 607–648.
Janda, Laura A. 2008. “Motion Verbs and the Development of Aspect in Russian”. Scando-Slavica 54: 179-197.
Janda, Laura A. and Olga Lyashevskaya 2012. “Semantic Profiles of Five Russian Prefixes: po-, s- za-, na- pro-”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 20(2).
Krongauz, Maksim A. 1997. 1998. Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: semantičeskaja grammatika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul ́tury. Kuznetsova, Julia. 2010a. Natural and non-Natural Perfectives: Prefix Statistics. Presentation for the Cognitive Linguistics: Empirical Approaches to Russian research group.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1972). Fundamentals of linguistic analysis. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Christian 1985, “Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change.” Lingua e Stile 20:303-318.
Lyashevskaya, O. N. and S. A. Sharoff. 2010. Častotnyj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (na materiale Nacional’nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka). Moscow: Azbukovnik. Ožegov, S. I. and N. Ju. Švedova. 2001. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Makarova, Anastasia and Laura A. Janda. 2009. “Do It Once: A Case Study of the Russian -nu- Semelfactives”. Scando-Slavica 55:78–99.
Partee, B., & Meulen, A. (1990). Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Peskova, P. (2012). The Development of Czech Aspectual Prefixes Through Grammaticalization and Lexicalization Processes. Master’s thesis, University of New Mexico. Available at http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/24505/Master%20Thesis_Pavlina%20Peskova%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=1
Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. “Frame Semantics.” In J-O. Östman, J. Verschueren, and J. Blommaert (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
112
Polinsky, M. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14, 191-262.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2004. “Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes.” Nordlyd 32: 323-361.
Rosch, E. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Shull, Sarah. 2003. The Experience of Space. The Privileged Role of Spatial Prefixation in Czech and Russian. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219-257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Svenonius, Peter. 2004b. “Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP”. Nordlyd 32: 205-253. Svenonius, Peter. 2008. “Russian prefixes are phrasal”. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages. The Fifth Conference, 526-537. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Talmy, L. (1988a). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Facts and Events. In Zeno Vendler (ed.) 12-146. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wade, T. (1992). A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.
Wade, T. (1996). Russian etymological dictionary. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Wade, T. (2002). The Oxford Russian grammar and verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
